Terri Schiavo

[Schneed10]

Argument #1: If life were running it's natural course in Terri's case, she would die of starvation because she is incapable of feeding herself. So if we're sticking to God's plan (in the case of a religious argument) he apparently wanted her to die by starvation. He was ready to take her soul to a better place, but we here on Earth are keeping her here by feeding her.

Argument #2: It was God's plan for Terri to fall into a vegetative state and for us here on Earth to keep her alive in that state indefinitely. By removing the feeding tube, we're going against God's wishes for her to remain alive. He'll take her soul when he's good and ready, and until then we should keep her alive.

As you can see, those are two completely conflicting viewpoints based on varying perceptions of what God's plans are. Problem is, NOBODY KNOWS what God's real plan is for her. So in my opinion, basing any decision regarding Terri's life on religion is completely wrong. Religion needs to stay out of the equation, because religion is open to too many interpretations.

I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted.

It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I also don't care if the husband is a sleezebag. He probably is a sleezebag, and that's why the parents needed to step in to begin with. If he was a good guy, the parents and him probably could have sat down and worked things out. But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die. That's the bottom line, this case should be decided based on what she would have wanted.

It's heart wrenching for her to have to die this way. But from a purely scientific standpoint, her brain is already dead. She's just a ball of neurological reflexes at this point. You could argue that there is a soul in there, but that would be a religious argument, open to too many interpretations, and has no place in our court system.

Couldn't agree more. I haven't been following the situation too closely but hope it is a situation I never have to face.

As others have said, it is a shame that 1) The parents and the husband couldn't work it out; 2) An extremely personal decision (BTW - I mean Terri's decision) required the intervention of a 3rd party mediator (the judicial system); and 3) the decision has become politicized and the focal point of groups whose interests are only tangentially related to the real wishes of Ms. Schiavo.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

But the bottom line is this case went to the courts and by a preponderance of the evidence it was revealed that dying was what Terri would have wanted. When it comes down to it, the parents could not present any evidence that Terri would have wanted to live in this state. The husband was able to make his case, and the courts ruled that Terri would have wanted to die.

Woah... not really. Neither side has been able to present any concrete eveidence either way. In cases like this the hudicial is supposed to determine what the person would want "as best they can" . This is where the real argument is coming down. There are those who say to side with life becasue we don't know fro an absolute fact what she wanted. And there are those who seem to simple want to believe Mr. Schiavo blindly and have her starved to death.

You do realize that two independent investigators for the state determined that there was no evidence either way what her wishes were? These are two people with no stake in this and they were both ignored. Why were they ignored? They were ignored because of the rule of law. The rule of law in this case has been applied correctly throughout it seems. The arguments are therefore only philosophical. This is going to lead to a new rule of law down the line I am betting.

Also...on a philosophical note I would argue that is should not be the parents who have to prove that she would have wanted to die. It should be Michael Schiavo's responsibility to prove she would want to die.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

Also...on a philosophical note I would argue that is should not be the parents who have to prove that she would have wanted to die. It should be Michael Schiavo's responsibility to prove she would want to die.

See this is what I get for talking before I get all the facts. I agree with this analysis. It seems to me anyone asserting that the incapacitated person wished to die should bear the burden of proof. From Schneed's earlier post, I thought this had happened.

FRPLG - If a judge or jury ruled that the husband credibly testified to the fact that Mrs. Schiavo wanted to die, then he probably did meet his burden of proof if it was by a mere preponderance regardless of the independent investigators.

A related question: what is the burden of proof someone should have to satisfy in cases where the incapacitated individual's decision is disputed: Mere preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt? or something in between?

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

A related question: what is the burden of proof someone should have to satisfy in cases where the incapacitated individual's decision is disputed: Mere preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt? or something in between?

It's technically a civil case (one party suing another for monetary damages, custody of a house or children in a divorce case, or legal right to guardianship as is the case here), which needs only a preponderance of the evidence. The very nature of the lawsuit (one on one, you either find for the defendant or for the plaintiff) requires that you go with the preponderance of the evidence. The point to make here is that Michael Schiavo was not legally required to show that his wife's wishes were to die in these circumstances, because by default the spouse is considered the legal guardian and is responsible for making the decision in this case. If Terri had a living will, then the decision would be made, but since there was no living will the decision falls in the hands of the legal guardian. The question isn't what burden of proof is needed regarding her wishes, the question at hand is what burden of proof is needed regarding Michael Schiavo's incapability as legal guardian. The crux of the lawsuit was that Terri's parents had to show that her husband was unfit to be her legal guardian. They wanted to be granted the legal right to be her guardian so that they could make the decision regarding her life.

Now, I'm not arguing what the ethical responsibility is, because that can go either way, and depends on the personal belief system I was rapping about before. I just mean to clarify the legal situation at hand. If you're put into a vegetative state, or if you're being kept alive by life support, and you have no living will, then the decision legally falls into the hands of your spouse. If you don't like that idea, you better get a living will, because the only way to prevent your spouse from being in charge of your life is having someone prove that your spouse is unfit to make that decision.

Whether Michael Schiavo was unfit to make that decision is up to debate, but one thing is for sure, Terri's parents couldn't provide any evidence that he is unfit.

Personally, I don't think anything needs to change with the legal system. It's this simple, if you trust your spouse to make the right decision for you, then you don't need a living will. If you don't trust your spouse, then you need to get a living will.

[JoeRedskin]

Nice post Schneed. Thanks for the run down. As is often the case in hotly disputed cases, at its most basic level, this comes down to two competing issues which are "foundational' to many people believe system.

The sanctity of marriage - in that a spouse is given priority in making choices for an absent or otherwise incapacitated spouse.

Versus the right to life.