(Note: this will be my first, last, and only posting on the Terri Schiavo story.)
First, everyone — and I mean everyone — ought to go here and download a living will, as I have, and get it filled out and filed as soon as possible.
Secondly, I think it is critical to note that every single thing that happened in the Schiavo case happened within the letter of the law.
By law, people can refuse medical treatment such as she was receiving.
By law, they can do that directly, or through a prepared document.
By law, when a person is incompetent to make such decisions on their own behalf, and has not made prior arrangements, that power passes to their next of kin.
By law, a spouse is considered “next of kin.”
By law, in the absence of a spouse, that power passes to any adult children.
By law, in their absence, the power then — and only then — passes to the parents.
By law, Michael Schiavo was Terri Schiavo’s spouse right up until her death.
By law, Michael Schiavo had the right to order the discontinuance of her feeding tube and any other medical care.
And by law, her parents had absolutely no legal standing in that matter.
If you are appalled by the way the law worked in this case, and are convinced that the law was wrong, then you have every moral obligation to change that law. The people who make the law — the legislatures of the several states — are, in theory, accountable to the people through elections. Get your legislators to change the law.
But exactly what laws do you want changed, and how? If you think the Schiavos (correction: Schindlers — thanks, Puppet) should have been given custody of Terri, you need to change the very nature of marriage itself. You need to grant parents the right to initiate a divorce proceeding against the explicit wishes of one party and without the cooperation of the other — do you really want that to be possible? And do you really want to weaken the bonds of marriage that tie two people together?
It’s a truism in legal circles that tough cases lead to bad laws. And this is one of the toughest. Those who are calling for wholesale shakeups of some of the most fundamental components of our society today aren’t thinking things through enough. It’s one of the reasons why laws passed in regards to a single person or situation are such a bad idea.
In the end, the Terri Schiavo case might end up causing far more violence to the institution of marriage than that feared by the religious right when they were horrified at the thought of thousands of gays racing up the aisle.
And I can’t imagine anyone would want that to be their legacy.
J.
(And no, I am STILL not taking sides on the matter. I’m simply analyzing the potential consequences of some of the proposed actions of one side.)
(Update: 5/2/05, 3:30 p.m. — I’m closing comments on this thread. It’s degenerated into petty personal bickering, and that’s EXACTLY what I was trying to avoid.)
The guardian most assuredly DOES NOT have, by law, the authority to withhold food or water given by mouth. The odious Judge Greer, who couldn’t bother himself actually to visit Mrs. Schiavo himself, decreed that such feedings were “experimental” and might result in choking, and therefore forbade them. That the rest of the courts in this matter allowed this judicial execution to take place indicates only that we have a big job ahead of us in reining in some lifetime-sinecured totalitarian monsters.
Imagine being her parents and being forcibly restrained from giving her even droplets of water to ease her suffering. We have a very, very sick nation here if we can look at that and not cringe.
To many more to go over, but you get the picture, right?
Yeah, that you are clueless when it comes to appellate law. Greer’s findings are just an opinion. It is the opinion of others, myself included, that the trial court erred in allowing Schiavo to remain as GAL in that there was a clear conflict of interest.
Also, just for your addled brain, the court found there was a clear conflict on interest for both parties, but that doesn’t fit neatly into your little scenario, does it?
It has no bearing on the issue I am arguing in that someone else’s conflict of interest is irrelevant to whether Schiavo had a conflict of interest and should have been removed as GAL. You really have difficulty focusing on the issues, don’t you?
Oh, but wait, one of the things the appeals courts look at are abuses of discretion. Oops!
Oh, but wait, one of the things the appeals courts do not do is second guess the fact finder, in that they will defer to the fact finder on determinations of the weight and the credibility of the evidence. So, they are clearly not independent. Oops!
And to take someone else’s life based on the fact finding of one man, while applying the lowest burden of proof, and then providing only limited appellate review is a due process violation.
Keep ranting though, it provides great comic relief here at the office . . .
You seem to ignore the fact that a great deal of the posters agree with me — and I with them. And it’s not me they are laughing at.
That troll remark must have stung too . . .
Oh, God, on top of being immature, you are nuts! lol!
You may notice, if you take the blinders off that THIS WAS NOT A MURDER.
Well, YOU SURE AS HELL CAN’T CALL IT JUSTICE.
Oops, was I shouting?
Yes. But fortunately, justice can always be heard loudest.
Scott H:
You characterize this issue as a Right v. Left problem, when clearly it was not. You may well make the same argument of how a lack of compromise might well completely halt any move to fix the Social Security problem, but this was obviously an issue that found many, many people feeling that it was cruel and unjust to allow this woman to starve.
I also wish you would do a little more investigation into the causes behind the War Between the States. The numbers of slaves in the South were in rapid decline, slavery as an institution was indeed disappearing. The Southern states seceded when they found themselves under what they deemed to be entirely too much Federal control, much more in the realm of taxation and trade than as that control applied to slavery. The slavery issue was simply something that was easy fodder to drum up support amongst the non-agricultural population centers of the North. After the secession, the U.S.A. took measures to attempt to dry up the C.S.A., and those measures are what ultimately led to violence.
And when your family considered themselves to be Virginians first and Americans second, they were echoing exactly what our Founding Fathers envisioned. A union of sovereign states consolidated into a federation united in order to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
Scott,
I’d have to agree with you.
From an earlier study, it seems that we have split along personality/information processing lines and gaming strategy–a very deep rift. So we are of two camps which despise each other.
However, it appears that what was once called “liberalism” is self-destructing. If the GOP is able to keep its constituency and prove its good governance (big ifs), this situation should correct itself once the “liberal” movement is subcompetitive (it will need to reform itself).
Until then, this situation we have should get worse.
Julie, continuing her ranting . . .
Oh, but wait, one of the things the appeals courts do not do is second guess the fact finder, in that they will defer to the fact finder on determinations of the weight and the credibility of the evidence.
They don’t second guess the fact finder, maybe, but many trial decisions have been overturned for abuse of discretion.
Because you continue this endless rant about it, obviously without knowing what the hell you are talking about, further proof is provided . . .
Abuse of discretion
The standard of review used by appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts. A judgment will be termed an abuse of discretion if the adjudicator has failed to exercise sound, reasonable, and legal decision-making skills. see, e.g. http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?515%2B277 and http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct-cgi/get-us-cite?522%2B136
OK, so now we have slapped you abuse of discretion argument around and you have been handed your head.
Jul’s rants further. . .
You seem to ignore the fact that a great deal of the posters agree with me — and I with them.
Like I give a hoot what the others here think. I may admire their thoughts and points. Others I find wasted and, such as your, ill informed.
Oh, but I get it now. Because some of the people here share your view, you think your right. I recall a few of those self same individuals telling us that polls are useless, I believe you were one of them. Since you appear to have conducted your own little poll, sort of slams that validity check.
Jeez. . . it is so easy to prove you wrong over and over again with facts, facts that are so simple to find. It really makes you look like a complete fool.
I wish I had more time for this, but it’s Friday night and I don’t want to spend it trying to fix a troll.
Have a nice night though.
They don’t second guess the fact finder, maybe, but many trial decisions have been overturned for abuse of discretion.
They defer to the fact finder. Go ahead and say it! It is the legal standard and it was the SOR applied in this case.
And nice dodge – this isn’t about other trial decisions – it is in this decision where they specifically state that they deferred to the fact finder on the determination of the weight and the credibility of the evidence.
Because you continue this endless rant about it, obviously without knowing what the hell you are talking about, further proof is provided . . .
Not only do I know what I am talking about – and you don’t – I’m quoting from the damn opinion, you fool! You either never read it or you don’t understand it – probably both.
The standard of review used by appellate courts to review decisions of lower courts.
Blah blah blah. I love it. You do a search on findlaw and you not only see yourself as an atty but an expert in appellate law. Do you realize how foolish you look? What’s next? You going to get a Merck Manual and declare yourself a surgeon?
You do realize that abuse of discretion is the lowest standard of review, don’t you? Of course, you don’t. You’ve shot your argument in the foot. It is a burden extremely difficult to meet rarely because the appellate court defers to the findings of the fact finder like they did in this case! And once again, I and others, believe it is disgusting to kill someone based on the findings of one man.
OK, so now we have slapped you abuse of discretion argument around and you have been handed your head.
The only thing that gets slapped repeatedly is your head. Unfortunately, it has not improved your IQ.
Like I give a hoot what the others here think. I may admire their thoughts and points. Others I find wasted and, such as your, ill informed.
Of course, you do. You are trying to single me out as someone who holds an opinion that no one else holds. And isn’t all of this about you getting your ego bitch-slapped?
Oh, but I get it now. Because some of the people here share your view, you think your right.
No, I know I’m right based on the law, legal principles, etc, something you clearly have no knowledge of.
I recall a few of those self same individuals telling us that polls are useless, I believe you were one of them. Since you appear to have conducted your own little poll, sort of slams that validity check.
Not at all, thanks for the analogy! By reading the questions asked in the poll, I and others, could determined the biases and how the questions were written to influence the outcome. By reading the opinions and actually understanding the law – something you apparently haven’t done and can’t do – I and others, actually have opinions based on valid legal principles. You’re just a guy who grabs things off the internet you don’t understand.
Jeez. . . it is so easy to prove you wrong over and over again with facts, facts that are so simple to find. It really makes you look like a complete fool.
Oh, yeah, right!
I wish I had more time for this, but it’s Friday night and I don’t want to spend it trying to fix a troll.
Remember, your parents want you home by 11 and back in the basement.
Julie, not able to get out for the night, continued ranting . . .
And once again, I and others, believe it is disgusting to kill someone based on the findings of one man.
I rest my case. So as I have been saying all along, it is your opinion that he abused his discretion. Much of what you have posted is your opinion of the legal goings on. That is all.
You really must get out a little more there Jul’s, maybe you will see things that expand your view of the world. It is pretty narrow right now.
Oh, BTW, no I’m not an atty, to use your “lingo.” That doesn’t mean I have no knowledge of the law. You make an awful lot of assumptions, but you know the derivative of that, right?
If you are an atty{that is so cute}, I hope for the poor souls of the state you practice in, it is criminal law. You are, obviously, quite lacking on the civil side of things.
Wish I had more time to “bitch slap” some more sense into you, but I’m wasting my time here. I believe I’ll take my own advice, and retire from trolling you!
It has been fun though. It’s a beautiful day here in SoCal, I’m of to enjoy it.
And once again, I and others, believe it is disgusting to kill someone based on the findings of one man.
I rest my case.
Uh, you never had a case to rest.
So as I have been saying all along, it is your opinion that he abused his discretion. Much of what you have posted is your opinion of the legal goings on. That is all.
And your post is what? Opinion? Except your opinion is based on what? A few cases you pretended to read and that you can’t comprehend?
By the way, court decisions are also “opinions.” Thanks again for proving you don’t have a clue as to what you are talking about.
You really must get out a little more there Jul’s, maybe you will see things that expand your view of the world. It is pretty narrow right now.
Well one, unlike you, I’m not dependent on my parents letting me back into the house. I can come and go as I please anytime of day. Two, as opposed to you? Who is so deluded that you think you are an expert in everything? Maybe, you should get out and see a psychiatrist. I’m sure one could help your with your narcissistic personality..
Oh, BTW, no I’m not an atty, to use your “lingo.”
BTW, it’s an abbreviation. Sorry, it so perplexed you.
That doesn’t mean I have no knowledge of the law.
You independently demonstrated you have no knowledge.
You make an awful lot of assumptions, but you know the derivative of that, right?
That you don’t know what you are talking about is not an assumption. Therefore, the deriavative is that YOU are the ass.
If you are an atty {that is so cute}, . . .
Hmm, I never thought of abbreviations as being cute.
You are, obviously, quite lacking on the civil side of things.
Good! Because I surely wouldn’t want to encourage your bad behavior by being civil to you.
Wish I had more time to “bitch slap” some more sense into you
Minus ten points for your lack of originality.
but I’m wasting my time here.
You wasted your time by pretending you knew what you were talking about because your ego is more important to you than any of the issues.
I believe I’ll take my own advice, and retire from trolling you!
Nice to see you admit that you were the troll.
– The only law change required in this case would be the universal establishment of a law that states “provable adulterous behavior of any kind should immediately suspend rights of marraige for the offending party, which can only be reestablished by request of the offended spouse”… would solve a whole hell of a lot of problems and maybe even save a few marraiges…..