I do not want to buy this argument of an executin judge or murderous husband until I have more facts. Is there a copy of Mr. Schiavo's application or the ruling of the district court granting Mr. Schiavo's request to withhold nutrition and hydration? Second, is there a legal chronology of this case? I cannot get ahold of anything that is unfiltered. Third, has anyone analyzed this case as it relates to the Cruzan case decided by the USSC over ten years ago?
IANAL, but there is much that stinks about this case. Keep me informed of anything 'official' you find. What's the Cruzan case?
That is good, prudent advise. Unfortunately, too many people are not prudent when it comes to such things. IN addition, some folks change their minds when faced with the actuality of the circumstance.
As to the legal questions you raise, I would think that the application and ruling were a matter of public record and able to be obtained. As to the chronbology, there have been several posted on the various threads the last few days, but they may not be the precise legal documentation you are looking for. As the compareison to the other case you cite, I cannot say, but will look it up myself now that you have raised it.
I do not necessarily buy into the idea that the husband tried to kill Terri originally. If there is any evidence to that effect, you would have thought that it would have come out at the time...thought it does seem unusual for such a young person to suffer from the particular malady they attributed her collapse and brain damage to.
I do think his own motives have driven him to desire that Terri die as quqickly as possible now at best. My principle concern has been the husband's clear change in attitude and perspective after he won the malpractise suit. Afadivaits from nurses who cared for Terri indicate and substantiate this. He seems to have conflicting interests to Terri's well being now...and it seems fairly obvious.
Like with the events at Klamath Falls in 2001, there are times when matters are so extreme and time is for a fact of the essense, that appeals to the "system" are simply too slow and too inefective. At times such as that, getting the force of public opinion involved, particularly if your cause is just (and I believe the Shindler's cause was just and their motive was much more purely out of their love for their daughter and her interests), then there is sometimes an opportunity to influence things and get them back on track that circumvent the protracted and often ineffetive course of the traditional court system.
That happened in Klamath...it happened here. Heck, I suppose you could say it happened with the founding of this nation. Thank God we haven;t had to go to those extremes to get things set to right...that we still have some avenues that work short of that.
I believe that is what is really happeneing here and hope you find the legal documentation to support it. In the mean time, many had to follow their heart, the gut...and the voice of the spirit from within.
Regards.