However,
Terri Schiavo will not get to choose how her life ends.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the husband of a brain-damaged woman on Monday by refusing to intervene in a Florida appeal to keep her alive with a feeding tube.
The refusal to intervene, without comment, gives brain-damaged Theresa "Terri" Schiavo's husband, Michael, the right to remove the tube, although other legal appeals are pending.
Terri Schiavo's parents want a feeding tube to remain hooked to their daughter. In a persistent vegetative state, Terri Schiavo, 41, is able to breathe on her own, but is unable to swallow and depends on a feeding tube to remain alive.
After 10 years, her husband says she is not improving and would not have wanted to be kept alive in such a condition.
[snip]
In February 1990, Terri Schiavo's heart stopped beating after she collapsed from a chemical imbalance caused by an eating disorder. She did not have a written directive before her collapse. Ten years later, her husband asked a court to have her feeding tube removed, arguing she had shown no improvement. A judge ruled Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to be kept alive artificially.
Her parents, Bob and May Schindler, appealed, saying their daughter never had expressed such opinions. They are seeking a new trial, arguing she has been denied her due process rights.
The parents have appealed the case to a Pinellas County judge and to a Florida District court asking for intervention.
Speaking in Washington after the court ruled, Bob Schindler called the ruling "pathetic" and "judicial homicide." He contends that, despite the diagnosis of some doctors, his daughter is "awake and alert."
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube has been removed on two occasions, but was later reinserted after emergency legal appeals were filed. She remains hooked to a feeding tube while legal issues make their way through the courts. The refusal by the Supreme Court to intervene will not end the legal appeals.
Now, I am a lawyer. I understand that if a person does not have a Last Will and Testament, a Durable Power of Attorney and/or an Advance Healthcare Directive (otherwise known as a "Living Will"), then in most cases the spouse will be appointed guardian or attorney-in-fact of that person if he or she becomes incapacitated. So, I can understand how it is legal and correct that Michael Schiavo has the authority to end his wife's life. Terri Schiavo never wrote her wishes down, and as to her state of mind concerning her present situation and what she would want, there is conflicting evidence. Thus, the courts have no choice but to revert to give Michael Schiavo the authority to do as he wishes. He is charged with the life of Terri Schiavo.
But, I do not think he should be allowed to end it in this case. The fact that there is no written or legal documentation in the form of a will, a power of attorney or living will that evidences what Terri would want cuts both ways. It means that we don't know what her wishes are. Did she want to die in this situation, or did she want to live? We don't know. So while Michael Schiavo is charged with her life, he cannot be responsible for her death. While we normally deem Euthanasia acceptable in terminal situations when we choose it, it cannot be acceptable here, when there is no choice.
And further, the motives of Mr. Michael Schiavo are severely in doubt. He has has a new girlfriend that he wants to marry. He would be the beneficiary of a substantial life insurance policy should Terri die. Hmmmm. I think we should look up "Conflict of Interest" in Blacks' Legal.
So it is beyond me how we as a society can allow the Murder of Terri Schiavo. And the way she will die is horrible as well. She will starve to death. If an animal is starved to death, the owner goes to jail.
Comments are closed on this story.