The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care. § 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?
Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri. As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself(which he could have done thereby negating all the idiocy that followed), Michael followed a procedure permitted(key word being "permitted",...not "required") by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures.
Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case. The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwords, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
I notice that your pro-murder blog fails to address the trial de novo that was NEVER held. I guess that doesn’t agree with your liberaltarian pro-death mindset. Given 8mmMauser’s revealing post #28 I can certainly see why you would support a non-conservative for POTUS.
And if, as you claim, killing Terri was so popular than why didn’t Charlie Crist brag about his role in killing her when he ran for governor?
What a fantasy world you live in. None of that is anywhere close to the truth. Lies roll off your tongue so easily.
Terri did not have an advance directive.
Michael did not have the legal authority to kill Terri. He did not forfeit that nonexistent right and voluntarily petition the court to exercise his rights for him. The court did not have the legal authority to become Terri’s surrogate. That is expressly forbidden by law. The court did rule that Terri would want to be deprived of her rights and tortured to death, and that the clear and convincing requirement had been met. The evidence did not support such a ruling. All of the witnesses on Terri’s side provided clear and convincing evidence that she was a pro-life Catholic who opposed killing and being killed. Even Michael testified that she wanted to live for the next fifty years being taken care of by him. How does that translate into a desire to be tortured to death?
Þ