This is an extended talk given by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo and eyewittness to her malady, and ultimately her death.
Talk by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo
292 thoughts on “Talk by David Gibbs, lawyer to Terri Schiavo”
Comments are closed.
Ok, I listened to around the first 15 or 20 minutes of the video. The attorney made three statements that struck me in particular:
1) in the early 90s, after the brain injury, Terri was learning to walk using parallel bars.
2) Michael Schiavo won a “multi-million” dollar award.
3) in cases of dehydration, the heart explodes, it “literally disintegrates.”
Other than the attorney having said this, and other than its repetition in right-wing blogs, is there any evidence, anywhere in the known universe, or in any other space-time dimension, that any of those things are true? If so, please list. If not, please acknowledge.
Missourian really is correct. When faced with uncomfortable truths you retreat and scatter hoping to find a weak point, and then pound that point as if the entire argument rests on it.
I’ll take the attorney’s word that Terri was learning how to walk when Michael Schiavo stopped therapy. We know that he stopped the therapy; whether or not Terri was using parallel bars in her therapy doesn’t really have to proved.
We know that Michael won around $2 million in the settlement.
As for how dehydration attacks healthy organs in the body, I’ll take the the lawyers’ word for it. If it works differently for different people, so be it.
Why are you so eager to defend this killing?
Fr. Hans writes: “Missourian really is correct. When faced with uncomfortable truths you retreat and scatter hoping to find a weak point, and then pound that point as if the entire argument rests on it.”
In my experience, when I bring up serious issues with the Schindler side of the case, backed by actual documentation, you stop talking about the case and start talking about me. Which is exactly what is happening now.
When it comes to the Schiavo case, it seems that you accept without question or verification anything that comes from the Schindler side. You say that there is a lot of information not contained in the case record, but then you seem indifferent to what is in the record, as if the record is always trumped by what is not in the record. It appears that the record is irrelevant to you. You never cite anything in it. You don’t test the claims of the various parties by referring to it. And when I refer to it, you see that as a distraction from the “true issue.”
As of 2003 David Gibbs became the lead attorney for one side of the Schiavo case — the most highly litigated medical ethics case in recent years, a case that was discussed in congress and by the president, and that went before the Supreme Court twice. In a video that you posted — not me, but you — the Schindler attorney makes various remarkable claims of which I had never heard before.
These are not trivial “weak points.” To claim that Terri Schiavo was learning to walk when Michael discontinued treatment, is to assert that Terri was making regular progress, in fact remarkable and miraculous progress. This makes his discontinuation of therapy seem even more reprehensible, even monstrous. But we know from the case record that she was making no progress, and that the doctors had been telling Michael for three years that the case was hopeless. In spite of that Michael continued aggressive therapy, until in 1994 he came to accept the prognosis that he had been told all along. Note that David Gibbs says that Terri was learning to walk, but he does not say when or where that happened. Next time you run into him, ask him about that. Is there a photo? If she were learning to walk, surely that would be documented in the medical record. If she were learning to walk, why was that never disclosed in any of the many legal proceedings? Why does the guardian ad litem report in 1998 not mention it? Why does the guardian ad litem report of 2003 not mention it? A reasonable person might conclude it’s because it never happened.
Claiming that Michael Schiavo got a “multi-million dollar” settlement gives the impression that he received far more than he actually did. The case record clearly shows that he personally received $300,000 for loss of consortium, and that $750,000 went into a trust fund for Terri. Gibbs knows this. He’s not stupid or misinformed. But he intentionally exaggerates the amount so as to give more of an impression that Michael was “out for the money.”
To imply that Terri’s heart “exploded” is first, to be completely wrong about what happens in dehydration, and second, to ignore the extensive pathology report on Terri’s heart at the time of her death. Again, Gibbs know about this.
I was simply asking whether or not there is any way to verify his assertions. Either there is or there isn’t. I think you’ve answered my question. There isn’t.
Fr. Hans: “Why are you so eager to defend this killing?”
How does verifying the facts constitute a defense of killing? It’s as if you assume that the remarks of the Shindlers and their allies and attorneys are sacrosanct, utterly beyond all doubt or question. Not because their statements are true or accurate, but merely in virtue of their strong and sincere feelings about the case. With respect to other topics, you would call that “moralizing,” and that’s exactly what it is in this case. Something is true or believable based on its own merits, not on the strength or sincerity of emotion behind the claim.
In my experience, when I bring up serious issues with the Schindler side of the case, backed by actual documentation, you stop talking about the case and start talking about me.
Because you do not listen, you are not capable of processing information that lies outside your neo-pagan world view. You are utterly incapable of believing anything that would challenge this worldview, thus you hide in “legal documents”
in fact remarkable and miraculous progress
Only remarkable and “miraculous” if you are dead set on believing a certain set of facts in this case – the facts that you choose to believe.
It’s as if you assume that the remarks of the Shindlers and their allies and attorneys are sacrosanct, utterly beyond all doubt or question. Not because their statements are true or accurate, but merely in virtue of their strong and sincere feelings about the case.
Which is the crux for you – you believe anyone who does not buy your thinking is being sentimental. The idea that you are being sentimental (toward a neo-pagan philosophy) does not cross your mind. Thus, you really do believe the “facts” support neo-paganism.
Thus, you are not open to discussion, you are only open to endless “debate”. Question is, how long will the Orthodox on this list tolerate it?
Note 3. Jim, you hold the court record as sancrosanct, while ignoring that the only doctors whose testimony was considered were euthanasia advocates chosen by George Felos (Michael Schiavo’s attorney) who is also a euthanasia activist.
Yet you insist that only this record, and not the credible testimony of witnesses not called, be allowed in the discussion.
You want us to believe that this record ought to be the end of the debate, and that those who dispute Judge Greer’s decision are making up points out of whole cloth. Then, to drive the point home, you brand all those objections as stemming from the “religious right” — as if that appellation drives the final nail into this coffin you built.
This issue won’t go away because the capital death of a non-criminal is an agregious injustice, no matter how handicapped she may have been. You are defending a principle here whether you like it or not: courts can arbitrarily decide who lives and who dies. And while you mitigate the principle by arguing that Terri was PVS (a charge her attorney, an eyewitness, disputes), the principle still holds.
The truth is that Terri Schiavo did not have to die. She was healthy, albeit disabled. Michael Schiavo could have quietly divorced her and her parents would have taken over the care and feeding. That’s why I view her death as martyrdom. See: The Martyrdom of Terri Schiavo.
Fr. Hans writes: “Jim, you hold the court record as sancrosanct, while ignoring that the only doctors whose testimony was considered were euthanasia advocates chosen by George Felos (Michael Schiavo’s attorney) who is also a euthanasia activist.”
First, let’s talk about the legal record, and other related documents, that together I will refer to as the “case record.”
I look at it this way. The case record functions as a timeline. It also functions as a repository of the basic facts of the case. It contains information on the major players, who testified and who did not. To some extent it contains a record of that testimony. It records the judge’s opinion, and often the judge’s reasoning behind the opinion, both at the trial court and appellate levels. It contains other information compiled by the guardians ad litem, serving in 1998 and 2003. It also contains the extensive pathology report.
Think of it this way: the case record is book that is required reading for the “class” on the Schiavo situation. The price of being a serious contender in the debate is reading the book. Is the book perfect or sacrosanct? Of course not. But it is the starting point of the discussion. If someone wants to dispute the book, great, bring it on, complete with the reasons why you doubt the book.
In my experience, the problem is that people do not offer a reason for disputing it. For example, you just said that “the only doctors whose testimony was considered were euthanasia advocates chosen by George Felos.” But we know that’s not true. Both sides presented expert testimony. There was an evidentiary hearing ordered by the Court of Appeals precisely to hear that evidence. Judge Greer found that the expert testimony presented by the Schindler’s physicians was not persuasive. He even discusses his reasons for not finding it persuasive. So the starting point of your discussion should be explaining why you think Greer was wrong in not finding them persuasive. But in order to do that, you have to know the material. Fortunately, that is not hard to do. In other words, there’s an argument on your side to be made, but it’s not the argument that you’re making.
Fr. Hans: “Yet you insist that only this record, and not the credible testimony of witnesses not called, be allowed in the discussion.”
I am happy to talk about the other witnesses who were not part of the official proceeding. But I’m going to examine what they say. I’m going to look for corroboration. A recent post by — someone whose name escapes me at the moment — listed some of those sources. There being only 24 hours in a day I don’t have time right now to respond to all of that. But the poster is right to introduce other sources.
On a different note — If you run into Christopher, please tell him that I am no longer responding to him. I mentioned that already, but he may have missed it. I want to talk about the issues. He wants to talk about me. Frankly, I’m not all that interesting, and I’m quite sure that others are bored by the continual back-and-forth. So as long as he wants to discuss me as the topic, he’ll have to do that without my assistance. So he is free to attack or denounce me as he feels necessary. And as Forrest Gump said, that’s all I have to say about that.
You can’t debate the Schiavo case with the faithful using facts and evidence.
It is very simple. The Schindlers and their advisors made a fateful decision early on to abandon the simplest and most powerful argument in their favor.
Faith was taken out of the equation. Instead they adopted the philosphy of war. They also adopted a Madison Ave approach: proper packaging, putting the proper spin on things, damage control, slogans, sprucing it up, giving it a fresh coat of paint, selective imagery, specially selected snap shots of only the best moments.
The Schindler family felt the need to edit.
Why?
My opinion is that they felt the truth was ugly and they were advised that the American public wouldn’t embrace the ugly truth or help them in their fight if there was full disclosure without editing.
I think this is a safe assumption considering that the Schindler family has never (and will never) release the full and unedited many hours of video tape that they have of their daughter.
I’m referring of course to the video tape from which they carefully selected (edited?) a few moments to release out to the internet.
When the Schindler family wrote their book they did not quote from or make reference to any kind of official records. When Michael Schiavo wrote his book (or had it ghost written…) he included quotations and references to the official records.
Mary Schindler testifies in court under oath – an official proceeding with an official record- and states Michael Schiavo is a wonderful person, son in law and husband. I refer to Mary Schindlers testimony in the public record of the medical malpractice trial. Under oath and under penalty of prosecution for perjury she says nothing about impending divorce. Nothing about abusive behavior. Nothing about controlling behavior. Nothing about violent assaults. Nothing about suspecting Michael Schiavo of anything other than being a good and supportive son in law.
In my opinion what happened later- the deceptions, the misrepresentations, the outright lies- came out of the Schindler “under seige” and at war mentality. The “all is fair in love and war” mentality they adopted after abandoning their faith in God and their faith in the American legal system and their faith in Government.
The point is that the ship has sailed. In trying to inflame the passions of the American people and incite an uprising against the legal system the Schindlers and their supporters very obviously felt it was necessary to give truth the night off. Well more like they felt the need to send the truth on a vacation. An extended vacation. They didn’t show case the truth.
They appealed to the conspiracy nuts and fed them tall tales of far reaching efforts to cover up. Tales of medical records being altered. Tales of Terri speaking. Tales of Terri on parallel bars. Tales of Terri complaining about menstrual cramps (because she could feel and complain about menstrual pain but had to wear diapers because: A. she couldn’t feel the need to purge or B. Couldn’t find a way to communicate she needed the toilet but could figure out how to communicate she had menstrual cramps?) Tales of abuse and neglect.
Multiple (more than 100) investigations by Florida DCF uncovered no verifiable or substantiated incidents of abuse, neglect or mismanagement of finances. The Florida attorney general was asked by the governor of Florida to find evidence of crimes and more specifically was asked to find evidence that Michael Schiavo had committed a crime. The report made to the governor was crystal clear that there was no evidence, no crime and no possibility to prosecute.
The point is the passionately faithful have embraced the Schindler versions and variations not because the evidence clearly indicates that the Schindlers were honest and truthful. Quite the contrary.
One of the most outrageously effective tools the Schindlers used was to convince their supporters that if they weren’t with them then they were with the enemy. If they weren’t entirely on their side and entirely supportive of their statements then they were a traitor. To support the Schindlers was to support Catholics, pro life and disability rights.
To disagree with them or to call them on their lies was to be against them and meant you were anti-catholic, pro euthanasia, a dog beater, woman hater, against equal protection, etc.
In other words to support the Schindlers is saintly. To dispel the lies and misrepresentations or to point out the facts and evidence that contradicts the Schindlers, well, that makes you evil and means you are pro euthanasia.
Note 7. Interesting theory, Amazed. Is this a backhanded justification for dehydrating the poor woman?
Note 8: While I may sympathize and even agree with the Schindler’s cause, I must ask: do the ends justify the means?
In other words, if the cause itself is right, does it thereby negate any wrongdoing that may be done to accomplish that goal? It seems that what many have implied here is that dishonesty is a lesser evil than the perceived injustice of what occurred in this case, so it shouldn’t be mentioned.
I’m not saying that the Schindlers were dishonest about some things, but when it’s noted that the evidence points in that direction, it seems to be ignored.
Amazed writes: “You can’t debate the Schiavo case with the faithful using facts and evidence.”
You got that right. I tried — and have the scars to prove it. For the faithful, the Schindlers and their advocates always speak ex cathedra. Everything is infallible. It can never be doubted. If the Schindler side says it, it’s true, end of story, end of discussion.
Over a period of a few years I wrote a number of Schiavo posts here, quoting verbatim from the case record, posting extensive links and references. The faithful received that information with indifference at best, outrage and derision at worst. Unlike you, I am not “amazed.” It is standard operating procedure, totally predictable. So I can tell you exactly what will happen. If you post a few more things like that, you will be personally attacked and insulted. Your motives will be questioned. You will be accused of supporting murder, a mouthpiece for the culture of death. Been there, done that, got the tshirt. Standard operating procedure.
Amazed, you have written a great piece, articulate, interesting, eloquent, and — dare I say it — true. I’m going to have it engraved in bronze,and see if I can get it mounted on the wall of my local courthouse, right next to the Ten Commandments and the icon of Jesus.
You won’t last long here, but if you’re posting anywhere else, please let everyone know where that is.
Unfortunate but true that debate and discussion about the issue quickly degenerates to personal attacks because, as I have pointed out, the majority of people involved have a VERY black and white perception.
You are either for it or against it. If you point out the contradictions, falsehoods or misrepresentations and draw a clear line to the Schindler camp as the origin then you are labelled as being against the Schindlers and therefore you support all things evil.
It creates a true quandary. If you want to get at the truth you are walking in a mine field. The issue inflames. It polarizes. People feel like they have to be completely entrenched on their own side of the issue.
People have compassion for the Schindlers. People have sympathy for the Schindlers. People have embraced the Schindlers as icons.
A black and white view with no shades of gray.
People have lost sight of the fact that the Schindlers were typical human beings with flaws and faults and weaknesses. They could be misled. They could be influenced.
Robert Sr was out hawking the foundation mailing list to the highest bidder even as his daughter was in her final days on earth. He was out cutting deals with professional solicitors to increase donations to the foundation. At the time the stated purpose of the foundation- and thus the purpose of any donations made to it- was to save Mrs Schiavo.
But at the same time Robert Sr was making deals for the solicitation of funds he was also insisting that the family would ONLY accept pro bono legal services. They would only accept help/supplies/publicity if it was donated or gifted. They would only accept the help of volunteers.
So why did the foundation make MAJOR fundraising efforts? What did they need all that money when they were insisting and demanding that all contributions be gifted or donated?
I think the answer is pretty clear when you investigate who is on the foundation payroll. Robert Sr was looking out for his family and was forward thinking and looking to the future needs of his family. The updated, currently stated purpose of the foundation is very noble. It has a worthy purpose and goal. The Schindlers may have made the ultimate purpose to their lives.
My point is that they were not above criticism and they opened themselves up to criticism. They created a public persona. They entered the arena of politics. Maybe the end does justify the means. Maybe it doesn’t. But if you make claims in the public media, especially claims of conspiracies and plots among government officials and agencies, you should expect scrutiny. If you are honest in your claims and have nothing to hide you should welcome it.
David Gibbs rides the boat. The one I mentioned previously. The one that had already sailed.
His approach to “informing” the public and telling the “real” story as he witnessed it is nothing new or unique with passionate Schindler supporters.
If the public records and the court records don’t support your claims then it is mandatory to cast suspicion on the record as being incomplete or inaccurate. The court of popular public opinion is MUCH different from the courts of law. The court of public opinion doesn’t demand you swear an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The court of popular public opinion doesn’t have rules of evidence. You can testify to anything in the court of popular public opinion- it doesn’t matter if you have direct knowlege, or expert knowlege or what your motivations might be or what your personal agenda is.
Therefore the story you ascertain from the official record and the sworn statements is notably and glaringly different from the story you hear during the public appearances. In fact it is almost like two separate worlds and two separate realities. In order to maintain Mr Gibbs market value as a paid public speaker (Bobby Schindlers as well) they have to keep people convinced that they have the inside story, that there are “facts and evidence that have never been revealed” or “testimony that wasn’t allowed”.
The advertisements and introductions to their public speaking engagements read a lot like super market tabloid headlines: GET THE REAL STORY, WE HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE INSIDE COVERAGE.
If the Schindlers wanted you to know the REAL story then they would release the many hours of video tape that they withold from public inspection and scrutiny.
Amazed writes: “Unfortunate but true that debate and discussion about the issue quickly degenerates to personal attacks because, as I have pointed out, the majority of people involved have a VERY black and white perception.”
Yes, and a black and white perception that has been largely formed by misinformation, rumor, speculation, and unfounded allegation.
My personal opinion, upon reviewing the case record many times, is that the outcome in this case, however sad, is the appropriate outcome, based on Terri’s condition and what she would have wanted. That said, reasonable people can disagree. If someone reads the case record and concludes that the outcome was wrong or immoral, I have no problem with that — as long as it is an opinion that is informed by the actual facts and evidence in the case.
Amazed: “It creates a true quandary. If you want to get at the truth you are walking in a mine field. The issue inflames. It polarizes. People feel like they have to be completely entrenched on their own side of the issue.”
I think that the people who accepted the Schindler side of the case without question have a problem. There is at present a huge amount of information contradicting and refuting that side of the case. But at this point they are so invested in it that it’s difficult to back out. It’s like having bought Enron at $100 per share, and now the price has dropped to 50 cents, but to sell would be an admission that it was wrong to buy into it in the first place.
My frustration is that those on the Schindler side do have legitimate concerns. But the vast amount of misinformation obscures those concerns. In other words, those on the Schindler side have a legitimate case to make, but it’s not the case that they are making.
Frankly, everyone should be concerned about how that case played out. Is the legal system really the right venue for such cases? Are there resources that could be brought to bear — bioethics committees, mediation, pastoral or other counseling, etc., that could have averted the tragic split between the Schindlers and Michael? We’ll never know.
Amazed: “People have lost sight of the fact that the Schindlers were typical human beings with flaws and faults and weaknesses.”
And Michael too. When the case became famous and polarized, what was lost were the people. They were no longer people, but symbols, demanding allegiance, useful for scoring political points. You feel love and compassion for people, but not for symbols. You feel compassion for a husband who was so devastated by his wife’s collapse that he suffered extreme depression to the point that he thought about killing himself. You don’t feel compassion for a “monster.”
Amazed, I’m really impressed by your blunt honesty and insight. I hope you continue to post here, whatever your religious orientation. I posted here for several years, but recently came to understand that my posts often created a negative atmosphere that was not helpful. I’m might drop in from time to time, but do not plan on posting regularly. The Schiavo case is of particular interest to me, so I decided to drop in. Anyway, I hope you will consider posting on other topics. Your experience here may be different from mine. I’ve also been impressed with Jonathan Tartell’s posts, new to this venue as far as I know. I hope that intelligent and articulate people will always be welcome here. Best wishes.
Note 11. Amazed writes:
No, not “all things evil” but just euthanasia, which is an evil.
And no, the dissent is not merely “contradictions, falsehoods or misrepresentations” but compelling questions about what testimony was allowed in the record, contradictory testimony not allowed in, and so forth.
It’s easy to believe that the dissenters are part of a vast conspiracy of right wing yahoos, but this sidesteps the grave moral questions raised by Terri Schiavo’s death, such as:
1). Why was it necessary that Terri be killed when her parents were willing to pay for her continued support?
2) Why did not Michael Schiavo just divorce Terri and let her parents take over?
3) Death row inmates get an automatic appeal. Terri’s death was a capital death. Why no appeal?
4) Why where on the record pro-euthanasia physician/activists the primary physicians called to testify? Hardly a trustworthy or neutral party.
It would be nice if the discussion about Terri Schiavo were as black and white as you wish it was (portraying dissenters as right wing zealots does just that). It’s easier to justify her death that way.
But why do you think the handicapped, hardly a conservative constituency, were outraged by Terri’s killing? See: Not Dead Yet, and the Not Dead Yet Schiavo page. Even the Nation weighed in (to their credit I might add): Killed by Prejudice.
Thank you Jim. Whether it is apparent in my posts or not, I agree that the Schindlers and their followers and supporters needed to make a stand- indeed had a duty and obligation to object and to resist. The public debate is very important. The law in Florida, texas and many other states may very well be greatly in need of revision.
The problem is that the debate should be framed accurately and honestly.
You expect integrity, honesty and transparency from those who would take the moral high ground. It is rather disappointing to learn that people who profess a powerful and compelling faith actually demonstrate just the opposite at times when they should be relying upon their faith above all else.
Truth has a way of finding the people who are looking for it regardless of the obstacles placed in its path. Lies can certainly change a persons mind but it is truth that eventually changes a persons heart. I beleive the Schindlers and their supporters were more focused on changing minds than changing hearts or changing lives. I am certain they and their foundation will make a difference in the world but I am equally certain that they could have influenced many more people in a positive way if they had taken a different approach in bringing their private battle into the public arena.
Peace.
Amazed, your words would fit a white Christian country clubber when Martin Luther King was organizing the Birmingham bus boycott.
Jacobse,
In the end these discussions about the holiness or righteousness of the people involved only contribute noise of no value.
The focus should never have been on the soap opera like plots or the performances of the various cast members.
The focus should be on this: should the laws be changed? Do we have bad laws on the books? If they need to be changed then what needs to be changed?
The endless discussions about who should be cast into hell and who should be spared, who was more right or who was more wrong, such discussions simply drain the energy and burden the spirit.
As a man of religion I am surprised you are not more sensitive to the damage being done to your heart and spirit by not trying to lift these discussions and debates to a higher level and to have them serve a greater purpose than to simply try to fix blame or focus hate on one party or another.
Human beings will be human beings with all the inherent flaws and weaknesses. Those who would call themselves leaders, and in particular those that would be religious leaders need to rise above and have a broader vision, a greater perspective and be more mindful of the need for healing and forgiveness.
***
In anticipation of your disappoitment that I would not be engaged in further debate here is my response to your questions:
In answer to your questions 1 and 3 my response is that this was NOT a criminal case and was not about serving justice. This was a probate case and under probate law the court was charged with answering the question what would Terri Schiavo have wanted for herself under the circumstances. The court proceedings were not to determine whether she had committed a crime or, once found guilty, to determine the sentence. In answer to your question #3 in criminal cases to insure the requirement of due process is met the convicted is granted an automatic appeal. The Terri Schiavo case was by far the most litigated and reviewed case in US probate court history. I’ll say that again for emphasis- the TERRI SCHIAVO case was the most litigated and reviewed probate court case in US history. That hardly leaves room to debate whether their was adequate due process.
In answer to your question #4- the Schindlers had their witnesses and were allowed their own witnesses and in fact the Schindlers witnesses did testify. If those witenesses were unable to give them the outcome they wanted then I guess they chose their witnesses poorly and that is an issue you would need to take up with them and their legal counsel.
In answer to your question #2 in the record, specifically in the GAL reports, you will find that the Schindlers stated that even if they knew to a certainity that Terri would not want to be kept alive artificially that they would not have followed her instruction. Michael Schiavo stated very pointedly that Terri Schiavo was not an object or some THING that you simply returned or gave back and he stated very pointedly that he wanted to make sure that what she would have wanted is what was going to be done.
You can choose your friends. You certainly CHOOSE your mate. You cannot choose your family.
When you wed YOU remove yourself from the authority of mother and father and childhood and you begin your adult married life.
The wisdom in allowing the spouse to make medical and legal decisions before parents and family is that a persons CHOICE of mate should be honored and respected, that the institution of marriage is to be respected. You wed before God and man, you wed before the entire world. It is a testament to your desire to have your life and your fate intertwined with that of your mate. It is testament to your desire to follow your mate.
I am not interested in debating you on the relative merits of Mrs Schiavos choice of a husband. In hind sight she may have made a bad choice but it was HER CHOICE to make.
It was not within the rights of her parents to attempt to obtain a divorce on her behalf. I would again point out the GREAT contradiction in such an act. On the one hand they would claim Mrs Schiavo to be a practicing and faithful Catholic and that they themselves were practicing and faithful Catholics but then they would actively solicit a divorce on her behalf. Incredible and disturbing.
By the way I don’t support euthanasia or suicide.
I do support the right of individuals to make decisions about what medical treatments they would accept or reject. Not accepting painful, experimental, scarring, dangerous, futile or just plain vanilla UNWANTED medical treatment or surgery is every Americans right. Even the Catholics agree that man is not obligated to accept every medical treatment or surgery possible.
It is unfortunate that Terri Schiavo left no written directive but not surprising given her age at the time she collapsed.
That the courts acted to determine what she would have wanted for herself under the circumstances was not evil but the law as it was written and on the books at the time. The American legal system may not be perfect but it is better than most and certainly better than no law or regulation at all.
There were no “grave moral questions” surrounding Terri Schiavos death- at least nothing like what Jacobse listed.
Cutting through the skin, fascia and muscle to surgically implant a tube into the stomache, with the intent to leave such a device permanently protruding from the abdominal wall, is most definately a “medical treatment” and more exactly it is most definately a surgical procedure. It is not “natural” in the least to have such a medical device protruding from your stomache and out into the world through your abdomen. It is not comparable to the spoon feeding an infant receives unless you think infants are fed by cutting into them to get directly at their stomache.
I beleive the hearsay quote attributed to Terri Schiavo during the court proceedings was “no tubes for me”.
The only true and honest moral question raised in the case is whether a person should be allowed a choice in the matter.
The pro life activists hate the word CHOICE. The imperative moral question has nothing to do with Schindlers, Schiavos or Greers. The imperative moral question is how far will we allow activists to go in making medical decisions for us.
Note 17. Amazed, you start your post with:
. . . and end it with:
. . . revealing that your reasoning is nothing more that the abortion ideology applied to the infirm. You in fact do support euthansia, although perhaps unkowingly, in which case you don’t understand the implications of your own reasoning.
Fr. Hans writes: “And no, the dissent is not merely “contradictions, falsehoods or misrepresentations” but compelling questions about what testimony was allowed in the record, contradictory testimony not allowed in, and so forth.”
Amazed has already answered your specific questions, and better than I could. Here I would only point out that much of what you would say was “not allowed in,” was in fact considered and rejected, for various reasons. Take, for example, the affidavits of staff who claimed abuse on the part of Micael Schiavo:
Concerning medical testimony that was “not allowed in,” the physicians testifying on Michael Schiavo’s side of the case were not the “primary physicians.” As Amazed notes, physicians from both sides testified. In his ruling Judge Greer discusses why he found the Schiavo side compelling. That doesn’t mean that testimony on the other side was “not allowed in.”
It is true that later on other physicians filed affidavits stating that Terri Schiavo was not in a PVS. You’ll find that many of them based their opinions on nothing more than having seen the highly-edited videotape. Also, keep in mind that long before the case became controversial, Terri Schiavo had been diagnosed by her treating physicians as in a PVS back in November 1991.
Fr. Hans: “Why did not Michael Schiavo just divorce Terri and let her parents take over?”
Just to supplement what Amazed said. As guardian, Michael Schiavo had standing to petition the court to make a neutral determination of what his wife’s wishes would have been concerning continuance or withdrawal of medical interventions. Once the court made that determination, then any subsequent guardian would be dealing with the same finding, since it was not the guardian, but the court, acting as surrogate, that made the finding.
No Jacobse, despite your assignment of moral values to me based upon your interpretation, I do NOT support euthanasia, suicide or abortion.
I do support the right of Americans to choose and decide for themselves what medical treatments and surgeries they would accept or reject. I feel it is wrong to force anyone to accept intrusive or invasive, experimental, painful, scarring, futile or just simply UNWANTED medical treatments or surgeries. I really am not interested in what the persons justification or reasoning would be for their decision nor do I think they should have to justify their decision to anyone- not to me, not to you, not to the courts.
What a person decides is between them, their conscience and their God. The courts seem to agree since persons who object to blood transfusions on religious grounds are NOT forced to undergo the procedure even in the face of compelling and overwhelming evidence of great risk of death or substantial bodily harm.
One could always argue that the persons refusal is tantamount to suicide. Yet they are granted the freedom- the liberty- to make such a decision.
Human beings have free will and were granted free will. Activists seem to think that they have some right or duty to control the freedoms and liberties of others, that they have a superior morality and therefore should be allowed to inflict their superior morality upon others.
Oddly enough the most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth, the only human that ever lived without sin, made it a point to forgive and not to condemn. The most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth did nothing to eliminate free will or control the lives of others. Rather he tried to teach them the error of their ways so that they could decide and choose to live better lives.
The ultimate role of religious leadership is to lead by example and to educate. Not to rule nor to enforce.
Sheep really aren’t too discerning about the shephard they will follow:
“I’ll take the attorney’s word that Terri was learning how to walk when Michael Schiavo stopped therapy. We know that he stopped the therapy; whether or not Terri was using parallel bars in her therapy doesn’t really have to proved.” – Jacobse
“As for how dehydration attacks healthy organs in the body, I’ll take the the lawyers’ word for it. If it works differently for different people, so be it.” – Jacobse
As simple as it would be to do your own research and ascertain the truth for yourself you would prefer to be spoon fed whatever this lawyer loads on the spoon.
Dehydration is well documented in the medical texts, it follows a predictable course and its effects on the human body are well documented. No disintegrating or exploding hearts- though thats a VERY creative and colorful embellishment not to mention stunning, shocking and disturbing to the uninformed, uneducated and easily led and mislead.
It is a very good example of how certain advisors and assistants to the Schindlers- not to mention the Schindlers themselves- used colorful and creative embellishment, selective and well edited video imagery and misrepresentation of medical documents, medical test results, court evidence and testimony to influence public opinion and inflame a passionate response from the easily lead and mislead.
There are many other examples:
In court the Schindler attorneys admitted to being in possession of the bone scan test results for years but in public appearances the Schindlers claimed the bone scan was “recently uncovered” evidence and, according to Schindler claims but NOT according to doctors, it was evidence that their daughter had been assaulted. Not any ordinary assault mind you but according to the Schindler claims an assault so severe it left her with a broken vetebra and multiple broken bones.
In other words the kind of aggravated assault (severe beating) requiring life saving medical attention and hospitalization.
The problem with those claims? The Schindlers and their attorneys were aware of the testimony given by the doctor who did the bone scan and knew the reason that the bone scan was ordered by Terri’s rehab physcian was that the rehab technician had reported unusual resistance in one knee and apparent inflamation for which there was no readily apparent explaination.
They were also aware that the diagnosis by the rehab physcian was H.O. or Heterotropic Ossification.
H.O. is naturally occurring bone degeneration taking place over time when a patient is immobile or bedridden.
James says:
I’m not saying that the Schindlers were dishonest about some things, but when it’s noted that the evidence points in that direction, it seems to be ignored.
Well yes, it is “ignored” because it is simply the nat on the Elephant. Again, you speak as a materialist. Who but a materialist would focus on the truth of this or that statement about this or that material fact when the huge fact of the execution of an innocent women stands over you?
Why have we been talking about this execution for weeks, and the materialist insist on talking about the relatively unimportant??
Fr. Jacobse asks:
1). Why was it necessary that Terri be killed when her parents were willing to pay for her continued support?
Because men like “Amazed” and Jim (how long did his grand exit last? two days?) have a materialist anthropology, thus they are deathly afraid of pain. They believe it is an act of mercy to kill Terri (even by de-hydration!). Thus they Troll an Orthodox blog wanting to talk endlessly about what the court said, “PVS”, and whatever supports their cause in their truncated view of the world and man.
2) Why did not Michael Schiavo just divorce Terri and let her parents take over?
Because he is a sincere pagan, who truly believes that it was right to kill here – indeed it was his mission
#’3 and 4 simply follow from the above
It was not within the rights of her parents to attempt to obtain a divorce on her behalf. I would again point out the GREAT contradiction in such an act. On the one hand they would claim Mrs Schiavo to be a practicing and faithful Catholic and that they themselves were practicing and faithful Catholics but then they would actively solicit a divorce on her behalf. Incredible and disturbing.
Disturbing because you have a pagan world view. In a just society (one where pagan ideas of “marriage” have not become the norm) Mr. Schiavo’s actions would have led to a rather “automatic” divorce (i.e. lying with another women). Terri Schindler (NOT Schiavo to a traditional Christian) would of course not been executed in a just society no matter what her marriage status…
No Jacobse, despite your assignment of moral values to me based upon your interpretation, I do NOT support euthanasia, suicide or abortion.
Come on, this sort of rationalization can is seen right through by a 5 year old. You DO support all the above, because you DO support radical individualism, the right for “one to define one’s own concept of existence”. Think about it…
One could always argue that the persons refusal is tantamount to suicide. Yet they are granted the freedom- the liberty- to make such a decision….Human beings have free will and were granted free will. Activists seem to think that they have some right or duty to control the freedoms and liberties of others, that they have a superior morality and therefore should be allowed to inflict their superior morality upon others.
So your a radical Libertarian, of the nasty type who believes any other philosophy besides radical libertarianism is an effort to “inflict superior morality upon others”. Luckily for you and the rest of us, such an arrogant philosophy (one that simply condemns all moral thought) has never been the basis of this country (or any other) and our laws….
Oddly enough the most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth, the only human that ever lived without sin, made it a point to forgive and not to condemn. The most morally superior human to walk the face of this earth did nothing to eliminate free will or control the lives of others. Rather he tried to teach them the error of their ways so that they could decide and choose to live better lives. The ultimate role of religious leadership is to lead by example and to educate. Not to rule nor to enforce.
BAHHHH!!! Jesus as radical libertarian. That’s “rich” as they say. Please, follow this howler up with more!!! 🙂
Christopher writes: “Because men like “Amazed” and Jim (how long did his grand exit last? two days?) have a materialist anthropology, thus they are deathly afraid of pain.”
I emerged from my hole in the ground because of Amazed’s amazingly accurate take on the Schiavo case. You’ll notice that I’m not commenting on the virtue of having a copy of a 16th century Russian Orthodox icon on display in a Louisiana courthouse, or any other thread.
A question for you — I’m not trying to pick a fight here, just curious. Which statement do you think best captures your view of the situation:
1) Terri Schiavo definetly would have wanted to be maintained in that condition as long as reasonably possible. Therefore it was wrong to discontinue the feeding tube.
2) Since we cannot know what Terri Schiavo would have wanted with any degree of certainty, it was wrong to discontinue the feeding tube.
3) The wishes of Terri Schiavo were irrelevant. She should have been kept alive as long as reasonably possible.
If none of those work for you, feel free to improvise. I’m trying to understand what your particular objection is.
Christopher asks: “Who but a materialist would focus on the truth of this or that statement about this or that material fact when the huge fact of the execution of an innocent women stands over you?”
Well, I just wanted to clarify whether or not the use of dishonesty in the interest of a “greater cause” (however you determine that to be) is morally acceptable or not.
You imply that it is.
I just wanted to clear up how the Orthodox approach issues of ethics. Thank you. I’m not sure how you can ever then refer to “moral absolutes”, however. In other words, you can’t say that telling a lie is always wrong. It’s not. Its use can be deemed not only understandable (and forgivable) but also desirable if the situation warrants it (such as this case).
ps. I have already stated I am not a materialist.
Note 16. Amazed writes:
So? How does this justify her dehydration? Further, the evidence for her ostensible desire “not to live like that” was so scant that another judge could just have easily made the opposite ruling. (Greer erred on the side of death, another might err on the side of life.)
Look, you really ought not to be arguing that her killing is justified because it was deemed so by the court. The case is way too shaky. I can understand why you and Jim and others want to ruling to stand as sancrosanct because that way the moral dimension can be overlooked.
Jim says he could accept a judgment either way, whether she lives or dies is a matter of indifference as long as the court decided it. Do you hold the same view?
But, there’s a law that supercedes all your legal locutions: thou shalt not kill. No amount of “choice” nullifies this law.
JamesK, you state:
You draw the wrong conclusion from what Christopher says. He is simply saying that whether factual incosistencies, even outright lies occur in those who supported not killing Terri, that is not the real issue. IMO, it would be amazing had they not. The real issue is the killing of a human being. All of the empiricism, etc. used to defend the killing is an inconsequential smoke screen that ignores the main issue. The real issue, what is a human being and under what conditions should human life be protected?
Actually, the problem here goes back long before the decision to terminate Terri’s life. It really brings to the fore front the use of “life sustaining” technology. I’ll admit I’m a radical when it comes to this stuff. I wouldn’t want most of it used on me at all. If I suffer an injury that is so severe or a disease process that requires a machine to keep me from dying–let me go.
However, once the decision to use life sustaining technology has been made a contract has been entered into which must be honored. As long as you live, we will support your life.
One of the problems is genuine informed consent. Doctors, in my experience, refuse to say someone is dying. At least that is what happened to me when my wife lay dying. All of those attending her knew, the nurses were legally prohibited from telling me (although bless them they tried to tell me anyway) and the doctor’s wouldn’t even when I explicitily demanded it.
The medical profession is, IMO, profoundly dishonest and afraid in the face of death. From that dishonesty flows a miasmic river of false hope and decisions are made that would be different were the truth told. That is from the best of the profession where necessary professional confidence and optimism quickly turns into denial and fear of lawsuit.
JamesK, if you will examine your thoughts and assumptions you are probably more of a materialist than you realize. I know I am. We cannot but help be infected with the spirit of the age. In our case that is materialism (and all of the demon spawn associated with it).
Note 31. Michael writes:
Michael, I’ve seen my share of this stuff and I don’t think the cynicism is justified. Doctors have to be extremely cautious because of malpractice suits. They don’t dare make any prognosis beyond offering odds, because if something unexpected develops, they can be sued, just as you say. It makes for confusion, but in our litigious society what other option do they have?
Further, it is not up to them to withhold treatment. They might obliquely make a recommendation, but the decision is always the family’s to make.
Also, life sustaining measures extending over a long period of time is very rare. Most measures don’t last all that long. As difficult as these decisions are, most families make them in relatively short order, but the adjustment still takes time. That too is something the doctors and nurses understand and why you see on ocassion care that might, under other circumstances, seem entirely unreasonable.
After months and months of conversation on the topic I’d like to sum up the two sides (nothing has been added to either since the inception)
Those in favor of Terri’s termination: its the law, its the facts (ad nauseum)
Those in favor of sustaining her life: she is a living human being, how can we kill her?
The higher, harder course is the one proceeding from the FACT that Terri was a living human being and now she is not. She did not die, she was killed.
But of course, many of the empiricists who have commented here even refuse to acknowledge that Terri is human, even that she was really alive. Until you are really willing to face that FACT, all the rest is nothing more than a “pomander’s perfume in the sewerage”.
Fr. all I can say, is that in my case the attending physcians were both profoundly uncomfortable when I asked direct questions about my wife’s prognosis and did all that they could do to avoid answering at all. To get an honest perspective, I had to go to a physican in my Church but because he was not directly involved in her treatment, he could only give me partial clues.
All to often “clinical detachment” becomes an excuse to become less human, not more.
I did not want or expect the doctor’s to make any decision as to treatment not was I in any way expecting guarantees, but they refused to give me the information I asked for and gave misleading explanations of outcomes. By doing that are they not deciding the course of treatment?
In the end, our technology has out striped our ability as human beings to utilize it. In many cases, good decisions become functionally impossible. Even Tristram Englehardt in one essay of his gave as the only solution “we have to be saints”.
I have a couple of good friends in my parish from whom I have sought medical advice and treatment from time to time. Fact of the matter is, they are still just guessing. The guesses are better than mine because they know more, but they are still just guesses. Even these guys have a tendancy to cover up the fact with bluster and bravado and these are really good people with strong faith.
Fr. Hans writes: “How does this justify her dehydration? Further, the evidence for her ostensible desire “not to live like that” was so scant that another judge could just have easily made the opposite ruling. (Greer erred on the side of death, another might err on the side of life.)”
On what do you base “so scant?” Judge Greer’s opinion was at the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence. When the District Court of Appeals received the case, they actually read the testimony on which Greer’s opinion was based, and concluded that the testimony was sufficient to constitute “clear and convincing” evidence. (This is all in the case record. I’ll provide a link if you want to read for yourself.) So it’s not just one judge, but a panel of appeals court judges coming to the same conclusion upon reviewing the very same testimony.
Fr. Hans: “Look, you really ought not to be arguing that her killing is justified because it was deemed so by the court. The case is way too shaky.”
Not to be rude, but it’s only shaky if you haven’t spent time with the case record.
Fr. Hans: “I can understand why you and Jim and others want to ruling to stand as sancrosanct because that way the moral dimension can be overlooked.”
The moral dimension is intimately connected to ruling and overall legal process, because the legal process was the context in which the facts of the case came to be known. It was the context in which testimony under oath was given, depositions were taken, medical opinions received and considered, evidence examined, witnesses cross-examined, appeals filed, case reviews performed, allegations investigated.
You speak of the moral dimension as something almost platonic, a disembidied entity that floats around independtly from the facts. But the moral dimension is something that arises from the facts, not something independent from them.
Fr. Hans: “Jim says he could accept a judgment either way, whether she lives or dies is a matter of indifference as long as the court decided it. Do you hold the same view?”
What I said is that my concern was that her wishes should be followed, as much as is possible to determine them.
It’s ironic to me that you and others here want to have the Ten Commandments and pictures of Jesus ON the courthouse, but then you have a kind of contempt for what goes on IN the courthouse — as if this whole legal thing is fundamentally irrelevant to truth and morality. If the court process is so trivial, and carries so little weight with you, why do you want to park the Ten Commandments there?
Note 35. Jim writes:
I’m reading David Gibbs’ book “Fighting for Dear Life” that outlines some of the backroom maneuvering of facts and data that never made the public record. He outlines the evidence offered that ostensibly proves Terri Schiavo wanted to die and there is not much there.
Do you really want to make this argument on a case that has created so much contention not only because of the judgment, but also on how that judgment was obtained? Not all judgments are sancrosanct, Jim. Look at Dredd Scott, or the handful of death row convictions that got overtuned when DNA evidence came of age even though the convictions were obtained by ostensibly incontrovertible evidence.
But that’s the point Jim. There is no evidence except hearsay, not to mention whether Terri Schiavo’s medical condition usually employed when life support is withdrawn. If you could offer something concrete, something beyond a back handed comment by a husband who hired a pro-euthanasia lawyer trying to change the world to his bizarre vision of human society (I read parts of his book), I’d grant you a little more room than I do. Like I said, you put a lot of faith in the courts.
But getting back to my first point, you did say that if the court had decided to let her live, you would be fine with that too. So what’s the moral principle you are defending here — it’s OK to kill people if they made an offhanded comment at one time or another that they would rather die than be infirm? Terri’s physical infirmity wass constant either way so I don’t see what else it could be.
All this aside however, it is still unclear to me why she needed to be killed. The woman had parents who wanted to take care of her. Why kill her?
Fr. Hans writes: “If you could offer something concrete, something beyond a back handed comment by a husband who hired a pro-euthanasia lawyer trying to change the world to his bizarre vision of human society (I read parts of his book), I’d grant you a little more room than I do. Like I said, you put a lot of faith in the courts.”
Two others also testified concerning her wishes, and their testimony was not disputed by the Schindler’s attorney. It’s not just an offhand comment. When you’re married you know what kind of person your spouse is, you know what the spouse would want. (In the same way that Tom Delay’s family knew what his father would have wanted after his father’s accident, even without quoting a specific statement.)
But let’s focus on Michael. What exactly would be his motivation in testifying falsely about his wife’s wishes? He was already living with his fiance, and had children with her. Even the conservative WorldnetDaily web site reported that Michael Schiavo rejected an offer of $1 million from a California businessman, if he walked away from the case. He rejected other offers, one reportedly for $10 million. He had already said that were any money from the trust fund left over he would donate that from charity. In fact, he didn’t receive any money upon Terri’s death. He was daily demonized and attacked in 100,000 conservative web sites, and in nationwide conservative talk shows. Utter lies were told about him. He received death threats. Walking away would have been the easiest thing to do, and according to public reports he could have done that with a million bucks in his wallet. But he didn’t. To me, it’s reasonable to conclude that he sincerely believed he was representing his wife’s wishes, and that he had good grounds for doing so.
Let’s talk about Judge Greer. He heard all the testimony. He was a lifelong Republican and conservative Christian. One of his friends said of him that “he IS the religious right.” Greer also was demonized by his co-religionists, and was forced to leave his church. He received multiple death threats, and had to travel with two armed state police officers. What was HIS motivation for ruling in favor of Michael’s side of the case, other than that he found that it was “clear and convincing.”
Let’s talk about the Court of Appeals. The panel of judges reviewed the actual testimony and concurred that the evidence was “clear and convincing,” thus opening themselves to attack and demonization.
To me, all of this constitutes “something concrete.”
Fr. Hans: “But getting back to my first point, you did say that if the court had decided to let her live, you would be fine with that too. So what’s the moral principle you are defending here — it’s OK to kill people if they made an offhanded comment at one time or another that they would rather die than be infirm?”
The moral principle is that every adult has the right to reject any and all medical interventions — whether you, I, or anyone else would agree with him or her. Perhaps the person should want something else. Perhaps the person has made a mistake. One of my family’s lifelong neighbors developed an ulcer on his leg, due to diabetes. But he “didn’t want to go to the doctor.” The leg became gangrenous. He didn’t want surgery. His family argued with him, but he was unmoved. He eventually died from that. May he rest in peace, I thought he made a terrible decision, a tragic decisions. But it was his decision to make.
Fr, Hans: “All this aside however, it is still unclear to me why she needed to be killed. The woman had parents who wanted to take care of her. Why kill her?”
It’s a simple answer. If she truly did not want to be maintained indefinitely in that situation, then the feeding tube should have been discontinued. Having people who want to take care of you is not a substitute for your own wishes being carried out.
Michael writes: “If I suffer an injury that is so severe or a disease process that requires a machine to keep me from dying–let me go. However, once the decision to use life sustaining technology has been made a contract has been entered into which must be honored. As long as you live, we will support your life.”
That is the “lobster trap” approach to medical technology. Once you get in, you can’t get out. I don’t think you’ll find much support for that.
Michael: “Those in favor of sustaining her life: she is a living human being, how can we kill her?”
Because she didn’t want to be maintained like that. Remember, no one asked her permission to surgically insert a feeding tube. That was done early on, because at first her prognosis was not known. In less than a year, the prognosis was known. As I stated before, Michael basically ignored the diagnosis for two more years in the hope of bringing his wife back. Therapy was not effective. There was no change.
Until recently only a criminal court could sentence someone to death
The legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” sounds good but it is a a far lower standard that “beyond reasonable doubt” which is required in criminal cases that might result in death penalty. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the Schiavo case.
Prior to the acceptance of euthanasia in America post WWII, only one type of court could sentence someone to death- a criminal court. As everyone knows, defendants accused of murder are entitled to a very long list of procedural protections. Foremost among those procedural protections is the burden of proof in criminal cases commonly expressed as “beyond a reasonable doubt.” This standard of proof was only the beginning. There are rights under the 6th Amendment to confront witnesses, rights under the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination, rights to speedy trial, protection from cruel and unusual punishment, and many more. No Supreme Court would allow a convicted murderer to be killed by starvatoin and dehydration over the course of days. It would be ruled cruel and unusual.
By contrast, prior to WWII, probate court was seen as a protector of the disabled and infirm. The Court supervised the affairs of the disabled and the infirm and protected them from harm and exploitation. The Court itself never entered an order that harmed the disabled or infirm. The standard of proof in probate court is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but “clear and convincing evidence.” Now probate judges can issue death sentences but the disabled lack the protections of a person accused of a crime. The standard of proof is lower. There is no protection against self-incrimination. There is no 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure. With these protections I could have easily defeated Terri’s husband, had Terry been a criminal defendant I could have gotten her off. She died at the hands of a probate judge, a sad state of affairs.
Wow. Some of you are truly angry, spiteful and hate filled. So much labelling. So much contempt for your fellow human beings.
If truth is really the gnat on the elephants back in this case then why spend so much time and energy avoiding the truth? Why expend so much effort and energy (FURY?) resisting the truth, circumventing it and claiming it to be irrelevant? Could it be because the truth doesn’t serve your purpose?
You want to argue the issue of what is right and what is wrong but you want to do it without TRUTH?
You want to argue morality but at the same time you want to argue that truth is unimportant?
If you want to know why the Schindlers lost in their efforts you need look no further than the nearest mirror. They lost with the help of supporters such as yourself, people who came to their aid with nothing to offer but vitriol and venom. Profiteers and opportunists flocked to the Schindlers like moths to a light. You were a perfect follower. Willing to overlook contradictions and outright lies, unwilling to do your own research, unwilling to think for yourself because that might have carried you too close to the edge of the flat world in which you live. Past the edge of your world is “individuality”.
You wouldn’t want to be UNIQUE with your own thoughts and ideas. That might make you a radical.
Missourian
Is it possible that the probate judge in Terri’s case was incompetent of making the decisions he did because of limited legal experience or knowledge in this type of case?
I know incompetent is a strong word, but I couldnt’ think of anything else at the moment.
JBL, possible, of course, but procedurally the entire things still stinks
JBL, sure, it is possible that he is incompetent, it was very possible that the Schindler’s first lawyer failed to fully appreciate the lengths to which Schiavo would go and she didn’t prepare properly. I haven’t studied the entire transcript and I don’t see myself doing that.
I am just pointing out the obvious, until recently only a criminal court could issue a ruling that would result in someone’s death. Now a probate court can and there are far fewer procedural protections.
“Clear and convincing” isn’t that high a standard of proof.
Although a judge will never instruct a jury this crudely, here are the short-hand informal descriptions of legal burdens of proof:
Beyond a reasonable doubt= more than 85 – 90 % certain
Clear and convincing = more than 60 to 65%
Preponderance of the evidence = 51% plus
Clear and convincing is a civil standard and it really isn’t that tough to meet.
Outside of cases like these, “clear and convincing” has NEVER been used when someone’s life is at stake.
Missourian writes: “The legal standard of “clear and convincing evidence” sounds good but it is a a far lower standard that “beyond reasonable doubt” which is required in criminal cases that might result in death penalty. This, to me, is the biggest problem with the Schiavo case.”
It is the highest burden of proof in civil cases. But believe it or not, I’m going to agree with you, in this sense: you raise an issue that is global, that is not restricted to the Schiavo case. In raising that issue you’re not doing “special pleading” for the Schiavo case. I will ultimately disagree with you, but you’re raising the right kind of issue.
But let’s talk about what the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence really means in Florida law:
Florida Supreme Court, In re Davey, 1994. [From Matt Conigliario’s web site, a practicinig attorney in Florida.]
So “clear and convincing” is not a trivial standard.
Missourian: “By contrast, prior to WWII . . . ”
But feeding tubes are a relatively recent innovation:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05342/619286.stm
As a relatively new technology we need to consider when the feeding tube is truly consistent with the wishes of the patient.
Missourian: “The standard of proof is lower. There is no protection against self-incrimination. ”
Ok, but since there is no crime, there is no self-incrimination.
Missourian: “There is no 4th amendment protection against unlawful search and seizure.”
Not sure how this relates. In layperson’s terms, you can’t conceal relevant information from the court. What is demanded in civil cases is optional in criminal cases. E.g., physicians investigated by state medical boards for diversion of narcotics have no “right to privacy,” no “right to remain silent.”
Misssourian: “With these protections I could have easily defeated Terri’s husband, had Terry been a criminal defendant I could have gotten her off.”
In other words, yeah, given a burden of proof that no state in the country has adopted for civil cases, you could have maintained her in a condition that to a “clear and convincing” standard of evidence she would not have wanted to be maintained. If you want to make the case around the country that in end of life cases, the burden of proof should be “beyond a reasonable doubt,” great, go for it, see what happens.
But keep in mind that the vast majority of such cases never reach the courts, and never get beyond the family’s consensus that the loved one would not have wanted to be maintained in such a condition. Had the Schindlers and Michael not become alienated, we never would have heard about anything.
“Had the Schindlers and Michael not become alienated, we never would have heard about anything.”
Not entirely accurate. More accurate would be to say that had the case not been brought to the media in an effort to get it into the political arena and the court of popular public opinion THEN we never would have heard anything.
Now that the discussion is civilized I’m curious how people here react to the texas futile treatment law.
Schiavo presents the circumstance of a family dispute at its core. Regardless of how you view Michael Schiavo or the Schindler family and how they behaved, etc etc. when you strip away all the extraneous noise it really boils down to a family dispute brought before the probate court for a decision.
The Texas law actually takes the decision power away from the family and even the patient and puts it squarely in the hands of hospitals and more accurately it puts the decision power in the hands of the hospitals ethics committee.
Note 41. Missourian writes:
Missourian, this is exactly what David Gibbs, lawyer for the Schindlers, said. The Schindlers, not being lawyers, didn’t really understand the legal subtleties at first and hired the wrong lawyer. If the case was handeled differently from the outset, the outcome could have been different.
I’m not a lawyer, but life and death being decided through a probate court strikes me as highly irregular, if not bizarre.
Note 39. Amazed, one of the rules on this blog is that moral posturing is highly discouraged. You are free to disagree with ideas expressed here, but posturing, by which I mean assertions of the kind you make in your note that don’t really discuss ideas but only cast moral opprobium, are better made elsewhere.
Missourian wrote:
So the only evidence presented in probate court that Terri — the testimony of her husband, his brother, and sister-in-law to an offhand comment of Terri’s years before — would have wanted to die if in a comatose state, would not have held held up in murder trial?
Missourian: “. . . procedurally the entire thing still stinks.”
Missourian, the number of such cases that actually reach the courts is so small I doubt we could even calculate a percentage. So to even have ANY legal review is rare. To have the level of legal review that happened in the Schiavo case is literally unprecedented.
For a moment, imagine an alternate reality in which Michael and the Schindlers had not become alienated, and that some time in the 90s they all agreed that the feeding tube should be discontinued. There would have been no judge, no trial, no sworn testimony, no cross-examination of witnesses, no evidence, no rules of evidence, no legal procedure, no attorneys, no legal record, no appeals, no investigations, no accusations of conflict of interest, no affidavits, no depositions, no protests outside the nursing home, no talk shows, no books written.
All you would have had was a note scrawled in the medical record: “family agrees to d/c peg tube.” This is standard procedure in the great majority of such cases. For a hard case you might have a medical ethics consult.
If you think the procedure in the Schiavo case stank, how do you like the standard procedure?
Amazed writes: “If truth is really the gnat on the elephants back in this case then why spend so much time and energy avoiding the truth? Why expend so much effort and energy (FURY?) resisting the truth, circumventing it and claiming it to be irrelevant? Could it be because the truth doesn’t serve your purpose?”
Hard also for me to understand, but there it is. How often I have wished that just a fraction of the emotional energy expended on this case could have been redirected into an examination of the case record, much of it freely and easily available. Had that happened, the Schiavo discussions here over the last few years would have been very different.
Note 29 JamesK says:
You imply that it is.
LOL! I did not. You simply are focusing on the nat, when you should focus on the beam. IF the Schindlers lied, cheated, frauded, etc. then yes, it is wrong. Now why are we talking about that when Terri was executed?
I just wanted to clear up how the Orthodox approach issues of ethics. Thank you. I’m not sure how you can ever then refer to “moral absolutes”, however. In other words, you can’t say that telling a lie is always wrong. It’s not. Its use can be deemed not only understandable (and forgivable) but also desirable if the situation warrants it (such as this case).
It’s garbage like this that makes me think you are a Troll. Question, did you bother to do a little reading on Orthodox Anthropology??
ps. I have already stated I am not a materialist.
You can state it until the cows come home. Your reasoning on all sort’s of subjects reveals you do not understand the ground of your own thought. You reason from materialist premises, arrive at materialist conclusions, and then come here and ask why Orthodoxy does not conform to your materialist vision…
Note 49: From greekorthodox.net:
“In instances where it is completely evident that death is inescapable, and the person is spiritually prepared for death by means of confession and communion, the Church blesses that person to die, without the interference of various life-prolonging medical devices and drugs”
“One ought not to generalise about the Church’s approach to this question. The problem of maintaining the life of the gravely ill needs an individualised approach – a careful and round discussion in each instance with the relatives of the ill person, his physician and spiritual director. ”
You seem to be saying that the Schindler’s testimony is irrelevant in the scheme of things while simultaneously using their testimony to assert that Terri was otherwise “healthy” and ready to get up and walk around at any moment. IF the Schindler’s, their attorneys and physicians were NOT accurate in their assessments, then you cannot say that this case was an “execution” of a healthy person. You might be led instead to believe that we were extending the life of a person through artificial means (which the Orthodox church does not deem necessary). Whether there was dishonesty on their part is NOT irrelevant!
By the way, are you trying to suggest that you’d be making this big of a fuss had Terri not had any form of insurance or any means of support and had to rely on state funding to keep her alive? For all of your opposition to “socialized medicine”, I’m doubting it.
I’m not making medical judgments here, but simply suggesting that it seems unwise to completely discard the testimonies of medical practitioners just because you WANT to believe otherwise.