The true lesson of the Schiavo case

[dsc]

get thee a living will. Sadly we have no idea what Schiavo really wanted. We have her husbands hearsay evidence but no real evidence of what her wishes actually were and at least as importantly just how heartfelt those wishes actually were. That is because, due to whatever reason, Terri didn't leave a living will.

One would hope that a family could agree on this type of thing, but Schiavo probably had some clue as to her parents' view on this and given that really should have written out instructions.

The Florida courts have ruled on this but mostly they have ruled that husbands have the right to make this decision, which under Florida law, they do. Given that presumption and the evident hopelessness of this case, they made the correct ruling. The law shouldn't be changed ex post facto here. But for future cases it might bear looking into the idea of appointing a guardian in cases like this. (Yes one was appointed for her but the guardian never was called on to litigate one way or the other). The husband doesn't have the purest of motives here. The evidence is pretty weak as to her real wants. The parents and other family members are unalterably opposed. All of those add up to a real need for a real challenge to the totality of spousal rights in this type of instance. It also calls for living wills. We would know what she wanted had she written it down. We wouldn't be depending upon the impure vessel that is her husband.

[KT2000]

1. others too

court testimony has included Terri Schiavo's friends saying that she told them that she would not want to live that way. It's not just Michael's word.
If this much evidence is not acceptable lost of people will be in trouble with having their wishes respected. Even having a living will, will not guarantee it - should help though.

[gnofg]

4. She made a passing

comment after a TV show. Who doesn't make an off hand comment at the age of 25. For something so definitive I believe one has to put it into a living will. Living wills were prevalent 15 years ago. I had one. Of course I also had kids and that makes a difference

[mondo joe]

13. But why assume in the absence of something "more definitive"

that being kept alive on life support is the default?

It's just as much a choice as removal of life support.

And that's part of the reason for next of kin status - to have a person to speak to your wishes when you can't.

[napi21]

7. There's also testimony that her parents said they didn't care what

her wishes were, then didn't want her to die.

I agree, the best you can do is have a living will and a health care Power of Attorney. It's very sad that we as Americans believe we have to protect ourselves from our government!

I always thought my Father in Law was nuts when he was so intent on keeping his guns unregistered so the government wouldn't be able to come take them. Now, I'm not so sure. They seem, little by little, to be taking everything. I still don't really care about guns, but I am very afraid about everything else.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Living wills were not prevalent 15 years ago

That is most likely why she did not have one.

[gnofg]

3. I couldn't agree

more. Your post is accurate. There is something about his conduct that doesn't ring true. First off he has a common law wife and 2 kids. In my opinion once he had a new family he should have forfeited his rights. He can't have consent over 2 families. There is no stronger bond than parent to child. I understand the Schindler's position. Finally, when he denied the Schindler's from seeing their daughter for 2 years this to me is cruel and this person has a real mean streak. Any good hearted person would give up his rights for the parents anyday.

[MichiganVote]

6. He never denied the parents rights to see their daughter.

Where exactly are you getting your "facts" from?

[gnofg]

9. maybe

I am wrong. But would you not give up the right to caretaking of your wife if her parents asked you. Especially the fact that he now has a whole new family. Something is just not right with his stand. I know if my inlaws asked me to do that I would not have to think for more than a few seconds to grant them their wish.

[sonicx]

11. Hell no. The parents admitted in court that they would ignore Terri's

wishes.

[MichiganVote]

12. Hell no I wouldn't give up taking care of my husband.

This man had a life with this woman. He shared with her, loved her, made love to her. How can anyone disregard that? No matter what parents can say, when your kids get married, they have chosen a life away from the parents. These parents need to work harder at acceptance. Their daughter is braindead and gone. Maligning her husband will not change it and the start of a new relationship on his part has not hurt Terri Shaivo. She loved her husband too and I think she'd approve.

[gnofg]

22. Who

is he married to Terri or his common law wife. All I know is I would be pissed if I was his common law wife.

[sonicx]

25. I wouldn't. If my wife wanted to move on, i wouldn't care...

as long as my wishes are cared out.

[fleabert]

28. he cannot have a common law wife as he is married to Terri still,

and will be until he is a widow. I would want my husband to do EXACTLY what he has done. The easy way out would have been to divorce her years ago and get married to the other woman, he chose the absolute hardest route and don't say it's because of money, because there isn't any. This has been discussed ad nauseum.

how is anyone still so unaware after the multitude of threads on this?

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

[MichiganVote]

31. He doesn't have a common law wife. He has a girlfriend and she takes care

of T.S. too.

[mondo joe]

14. Never. I would never surrender my spouse to anyone who would not

respect his wishes.

[Kitka]

17. I know of NO ONE that would do that.

And I talked to a lot of people about this today. No one. Not even my parents think my husband should give that right up.

[mondo joe]

24. If you'd surrender your husband I suggest you divorce now

You're really not cut out for it, and he'd be better off in a real marriage.

[sonicx]

8. the husband did not remove the tube, the court did.

and the parents don't care about Terri's wishes.

[MichiganVote]

5. you are misinformed. T. S. made her wishes clear to numerous people

The husband sought a guardium ad litum for his wife, not the parents. The case was heard a dozen times in several different courts. She was examined by 12 different reputable doctors who all, all, concluded her brain damage was irreversable.

This man believes that his wife died 15 years ago and no data has been found to support another conclusion. Why shouldn't he both look after her welfare and begin a new life? What are you, the world's only saint?

[dsc]

26. The court hearing turned on who had the right to make the decision

not on the decision. Had the positions here been reversed the courts would have ruled the other way.

[MichiganVote]

32. Maybe,maybe not. But we'll never know.

[Inland]

10. So it's all her fault.

She should have known that her parents are nutbags, so if she didn't get a dozen notaries to witness explicit instructions, we have no choice to turn her over to whoever is plugged into the right wing christian noise machine.

As for asserting that "the husbands have the right to make this decision", that's not only wrong but a slander. Husbands don't decide. Courts do. There are NO "spousal rights". What century did you think you were dealing with?

That's why the guardian ad litem, appointed by the court (as is usual in guardianship cases). He didn't work for the husband, or the parents. There is a guardianship and the removal of the feeding tube was a subject of litigation after litigation after litigation. There have been plenty of capital cases with less time and money spent.

What did she ever do to you?

[mondo joe]

16. Actually, there ARE spousal rights and next of kin status

In this case Michael Schiavo chose a different route available to him in Florida, asking the court to determine Terri's wishes.

And Terri was only in her early 20's - not an age at which most people have living wills established.

[Inland]

18. There aren't any spousal rights.

Being a spouse doesn't give any more say than anybody else.

Being nominated a guardian does, and even then it is under court supervision.

Nobody is respecting HIS wishes.

[mondo joe]

23. No spousal rights? Then gays are sure wasting a lot of effort to

get nothing.

[Inland]

30. That's a given. But the serious question is, does a husband

make the decision to end care for a wife?

Here, obviously not.

[dsc]

33. Yes he does which is why he has won every court hearing

[dsc]

27. You are flat out, totally, utterly, and completely wrong

The husband has the total, complete, right to make medical decisions in the case of a wife's incapacity. He went to court voluntarily not out of necessity. And yes I know this is true due to the marriage equality fight. It is one of the 1100+ rights that you have which I don't. Yes there are special rights for husbands.

[dsc]

29. I wouldn't call it her fault

but we should learn from this. During the height of the AIDS epidemic in the 80's I made sure my wishes were crystal clear in regards to what efforts should be made to keep me alive and what efforts shouldn't. I also, had I found a relationship, would have made sure I had the powers of attorney and living wills to be sure my partner would have the rights that spouses already have.

[Kitka]

15. You have no idea

what his motives are, but one doesn't give up his life, postpone remarriage, turn down money, and endure character assasinations like the one you're giving him here if his motives are "unpure".

[deadparrot]

19. Definitely. nt

[rucky]

20. Who's paying for Terry Shiavo's medical care?

sorry to hijack the thread, but i haven't been able to find this out and didn't want to start another schiavo thread.

:)

[UTUSN]

21. No, no, "but no real evidence of what her wishes actually were,"

This case has been AJUDICATED for 7 to 15 years, by State courts that deal with these issues every day.

It's NOT hearsay based on the spouse. The COURTS heard HIM and EVERYBODY ELSE, including non-relative, professional observers.

The COURTS have ruled. There has to be SOME place for FINALITY to happen. It is SUPPOSED to happen with INDIVIDUALS, FAMILY, State.

As for O.P.'s saying, "but no real evidence of what her wishes actually were..." THIS WAS HEARD by the COURTS. STATEMENTS. SWORN. EVIDENCE. It's NOT Flim-flam.