Further more, "a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest."
Yes, the judge ruled on the basis of I think 5 witnesses 3 of them from the husband, and Terri's sister and brother in law. I don't know who the others were. Should the judge have considered not accepting this? Sure, it is the judge's job to consider! But the other side did not have any witnesses either way and the people who testified were under oath and he found them credible. In fact as a civil proceding the minimum burden of proof evidence was met so the judge ruled as he did. Not so hard to accept from the outside looking in if one is reasonable.
The judge has to be an adding machine, rather than weighting fishy evidence according to its fishiness?
Sounds like the marvelous engineering of the trains that carried the Jews to Auschwitz.
Again Destro I must ask you this, are you saying that judges are infallable? They never make mistakes in their rulings and that we, as mere citizens, should not question rulings that we think are unjust?
That seems to be the arguement for why all of us should just "shut up and move on" where the whole Schiavo case is concerned.
He could have interpreted the term "clear an convincing evidence" to apply to both the conditions "the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent" or "the decision is in the patient's best interest"
In other words, if he wanted to err on the side of life, he could have interpreted the statute to require not just preponderonce of the evidence but clear and convincing evidence that it was in her best interest.
He could have but he didn't, because he wanted her to die.