Legal Question About Terry Shiavo

[Caveman]

I'm all for living wills, and I'm all for having my spouse look after me if I ended up in a vegetative state.

Yet... what's happening in the legal system regarding this case seems ridiculous to someone without a law degree. Where's the "backing" for any of the rulings? Where's the written proof of Terri Shiavo's wishes. How can this NOT be a requirement to make a ruling. What a crock.

Since when does someone's verbal word amount to anything in a court of law? I can't understand how Michael Shiavo can have a case based on some "memory he had some night blah blah blah..."

Taking all emotion aside from either side of the argument, I have a hard time understanding how this could "technically" happen. I can only have a "faxed copy" for courtroom evidence, yet "my verble word" is good enough... especially when it has the power of death?

What is this, Nazi Germany? I thought our law system was "smarter than that". The whole thing reminds me of the scene in the Monty Python Holy Grail movie where the victim keeps saying "I'm not dead yet"! We all can laugh at the ridiculousness of the scene yet the courts are making it come true before out vary eyes.

As you might tell, I'm not in agreement with the outcome and I know my opinion (as well as everyone else's) doesn't matter. What I find very curious though, is how irrational the whole court system appears to be because of this case. Where is the systematic process by which we arrive at logical conclusions based on any evidence we have on hand?

 

[Darkhawk28]

Her best friend, uncle and an in-law had stated the same thing that Michael did.

 

[rickn]

in this state, if she verbally said to him she didn't want to live like a vegetable or be bed ridden like he says, then he has the legal right to do what he's doing. I think the whole thing is a load of crap, they should have let the woman die 15yrs ago like she was suppose to.

 

[her209]

According to Florida Statute 765.101

(11) "Living will" or "declaration" means:

(a) A witnessed document in writing, voluntarily executed by the principal in accordance with s. 765.302; or

(b) A witnessed oral statement made by the principal expressing the principal's instructions concerning life-prolonging procedures.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: her209
According to Florida Statute 765.101

(11) "Living will" or "declaration" means:

(a) A witnessed document in writing, voluntarily executed by the principal in accordance with s. 765.302; or

(b) A witnessed oral statement made by the principal expressing the principal's instructions concerning life-prolonging procedures.

nice find.

 

[Caveman]

quote:
(11) "Living will" or "declaration" means:

(a) A witnessed document in writing, voluntarily executed by the principal in accordance with s. 765.302; or

(b) A witnessed oral statement made by the principal expressing the principal's instructions concerning life-prolonging procedures.


OK, this is my point. Obviously, the law is completely hosed and irrational. "Rule of Law" is a great thing as long as the law is rational. I don't see how anyone who's a rational person could look at clause b. of the "living will" law and not see the obvious rational flaws. Not much to say here than: "Duh".

 

[DaveSimmons]

Where is the systematic process by which we arrive at logical conclusions based on any evidence we have on hand?

The husband and parents did present their conflicting evidence in court, the judge weighed it and found for the husband. The judge's decision was reviewed and upheld by appeals court and the Florida supreme court.

Here is a site that doesn't appear to be taking a "side" in this case: Abstract appeal

Why is clause (b) irrational? Many / most people don't have a written living will, so if there is dispute amongst the closest relatives how else can the patient's wishes be determined except through verbal statements?

 

[Caveman]

Again... No matter how many times a judge presides over a case won't change the flawed nature of the law. Obviously, the law leaves open too many loopholes, hence the strong division of opinion on the case.

It baffles me that in almost all discussion of the case, hardly anyone has questioned the obvious absurdity of the law on which the judge has to interpret. The "Rule of Law" here seems like what a few 3rd graders might come up with in their afterschool playhouse... "Well Mikey said it one night so it must be right"... The absurdity seems surreal. How about written proof? How about erroring on the side of preserving life? This is the flip side of the same coin that has sent innocent folks to death row without proper proof. These are really irrational, irresponsible things to do...

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Caveman
Again... No matter how many times a judge presides over a case won't change the flawed nature of the law. Obviously, the law leaves open too many loopholes, hence the strong division of opinion on the case.

It baffles me that in almost all discussion of the case, hardly anyone has questioned the obvious absurdity of the law on which the judge has to interpret. The "Rule of Law" here seems like what a few 3rd graders might come up with in their afterschool playhouse... "Well Mikey said it one night so it must be right"... The absurdity seems surreal. How about written proof? How about erroring on the side of preserving life? This is the flip side of the same coin that has sent innocent folks to death row without proper proof. These are really irrational, irresponsible things to do...

Actually, there seems to be little if any division of legal opinion in this case...

 

[Caveman]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Caveman
Again... No matter how many times a judge presides over a case won't change the flawed nature of the law. Obviously, the law leaves open too many loopholes, hence the strong division of opinion on the case.

It baffles me that in almost all discussion of the case, hardly anyone has questioned the obvious absurdity of the law on which the judge has to interpret. The "Rule of Law" here seems like what a few 3rd graders might come up with in their afterschool playhouse... "Well Mikey said it one night so it must be right"... The absurdity seems surreal. How about written proof? How about erroring on the side of preserving life? This is the flip side of the same coin that has sent innocent folks to death row without proper proof. These are really irrational, irresponsible things to do...

Actually, there seems to be little if any division of legal opinion in this case...

Exactly. That's what's so funny. The entire judicial system is based on a 3rd grader's afterschool playhouse rules... And people have no problem with that. Amazing.

 

[rickn]

The entire judicial system is based on a 3rd grader's afterschool playhouse rules

Starting with the US Congress

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Caveman
The absurdity seems surreal. How about written proof? How about erroring on the side of preserving life? This is the flip side of the same coin that has sent innocent folks to death row without proper proof. These are really irrational, irresponsible things to do...

Who is closer to a wife than a husband? Not the parents. As others have noted, youchoose the person that you marry.

It was up to the parents to prove the husband's knowledge of Terri Shiavo's wishes was wrong. They failed.

If you didn't dislike the outcome, wouldn't you be calling it absurd to trust anyone but the husband? And please don't go back to the innuendo about him being "afraid she'll wake up" or "in it for the money" since

(a) there is no credible evidence of either
(b) her memory has been destroyed along with most of her brain
(c) the husband has turned down at least $1 million and probably $10 million
(d) he's gone through 8 years of suffering to try to let her body rest in peace.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Caveman

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Caveman
Again... No matter how many times a judge presides over a case won't change the flawed nature of the law. Obviously, the law leaves open too many loopholes, hence the strong division of opinion on the case.

It baffles me that in almost all discussion of the case, hardly anyone has questioned the obvious absurdity of the law on which the judge has to interpret. The "Rule of Law" here seems like what a few 3rd graders might come up with in their afterschool playhouse... "Well Mikey said it one night so it must be right"... The absurdity seems surreal. How about written proof? How about erroring on the side of preserving life? This is the flip side of the same coin that has sent innocent folks to death row without proper proof. These are really irrational, irresponsible things to do...

Actually, there seems to be little if any division of legal opinion in this case...

Exactly. That's what's so funny. The entire judicial system is based on a 3rd grader's afterschool playhouse rules... And people have no problem with that. Amazing.

You're overstating your case. A great number of cases need to be decided based on verbal recollection; not everything is written down, nor does it need to be!

If the husband were the only one claiming Terri made certain statements, it might look fishy; as it is, it does not. The parents have tried every manipulation they can think of to misrepresent Terri's real condition, and have appealed to emotion at every stage. The fact is law isn't supposed to be emotional, and one side has convicningly met their burden of proof under the law. I think the parents are completely delusional, but I don't blame them for what they've done, because if I believed what they claim to believe, I would have done the same thing. I wish they could accept the obvious truth (about her condition, if not her wishes), but they can't, and they will have to live with that somehow. It's tragic, but it isn't the fault of the husband, and it isn't the fault of the legal system.

 

[danweb]

Since when does someone's verbal word amount to anything in a court of law

obviously you dont know "chit" about the law system..

verbal words have no power? LOL

Please you should go read some law books before you post your rhetoric here
I have taken some law courses but I am too lazy to explain it to you..

 

[Caveman]

obviously you dont know "chit" about the law system..

verbal words have no power? LOL

Please you should go read some law books before you post your rhetoric here
I have taken some law courses but I am too lazy to explain it to you..

Obviously, you didn't read my post or you would know I don't claim to know "chit" about law. And that's the whole point... People (similar to yourself) try to reason your way out of the box by claiming that "the law was upheld". But that's circular reasoning. We all know the 3rd grade playhouse law was upheld. Was congress that inept when it formulated the law?

As an aside:
From the "Abstract Appeal" site... this is neat...

January 1993? Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994? Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998? Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would choose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would choose not to remove the tube

So... we see M. shaivo waiting long enough to get the 1 mil settlement cash... Long after Terri's been a vegetable. But wait... He's so dedicated to seeing that she gets her wishes and that her human rights aren't violated. Does not compute.

Then, he "remembers" what his wife really wanted a few years later after keeping silent... Fishy smell in here...

Again, third grade playhouse law at work here to not ask the "obvious, logical" questions which the law, by nature of its ineptness cannot begin to address...

 

[NJDevil]

Originally posted by: Caveman

obviously you dont know "chit" about the law system..

verbal words have no power? LOL

Please you should go read some law books before you post your rhetoric here
I have taken some law courses but I am too lazy to explain it to you..

Obviously, you didn't read my post or you would know I don't claim to know "chit" about law. And that's the whole point... People (similar to yourself) try to reason your way out of the box by claiming that "the law was upheld". But that's circular reasoning. We all know the 3rd grade playhouse law was upheld. Was congress that inept when it formulated the law?

As an aside:
From the "Abstract Appeal" site... this is neat...

January 1993? Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
March 1994? Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
May 1998? Michael files petition for court to determine whether Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri would choose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri would choose not to remove the tube

So... we see M. shaivo waiting long enough to get the 1 mil settlement cash... Long after Terri's been a vegetable. But wait... He's so dedicated to seeing that she gets her wishes and that her human rights aren't violated. Does not compute.

Then, he "remembers" what his wife really wanted a few years later after keeping silent... Fishy smell in here...

Again, third grade playhouse law at work here to not ask the "obvious, logical" questions which the law, by nature of its ineptness cannot begin to address...

That money is actually being used for her treatment.

Want to know another interesting fact? Her most frequent visitor IS her husband. Not her parents, not any Church officials or congressmen or governors. To say that the money he got in 93' was used for his own desires is just plain wrong. I thought it was well known that's how her medical bills are paid.

 

[Caveman]

That money is actually being used for her treatment.

Want to know another interesting fact? Her most frequent visitor IS her husband. Not her parents, not any Church officials or congressmen or governors. To say that the money he got in 93' was used for his own desires is just plain wrong. I thought it was well known that's how her medical bills are paid.

Please show proof that none of the money he got in the settlement will be his to keep after Terri dies, or that the entirety of the funds have been exhausted at the point of her death.

 

Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Her best friend, uncle and an in-law had stated the same thing that Michael did.

I believe that you're incorrect. The judge relied upon the hearsay oi three people: Michael himself, his brother (Terri's in-law) and sister-in-law.

Caveman, I too am bothered by this idea of "clear and convincing evidence". The burden of proof required, I believe, is insufficient. According to the report written by Terri's Guardian Ad Litem most states refuse to accept anything but a written will. However, Florida as usual and with its incompetency chose to permit the so-called clear and convincing evidence requirement.

[From source:] "While Florida remains among a minority of states that has provisions for proxy and/or surrogate decision making in matters of removal of artificial feeding when there is no written living will ? it is fair to say that this was a conscious, deliberate process within the Florida legislative arena.

They aren't even as populated as California which doesn't have such law, yet they make such ridiculous law. Heaven forbid that I would ever, should I lose the present resentment toward men and grow the strength to get married, trust him more than I trust my family members. I would write a living will just for the reason of excluding him, lest something like the Schavio case happens, before I would ever write one to declare him my guardian in the event that I became incapacitated. With the 50% divorce rate, I am surprised that many, especially women would hastily defend this man who technically has committed adultery--much as he attempts to apply just the legality of his marriage to her guardianship. I wonder if most of the women defending him are in youthful ages, as that would explain a whole lot. Or maybe his handsomeness makes them fail to reason and realize the reality of the so-called marriage. Until I have children with a man and live with him to see the children grow into adults, I will never put my life into his hands. Now once we've passed that barrier, succeeded to raise our kids and yet still find ourselves in a healthy relationship, then and only then will I entrust my living will and life decisions to him. For as much as it is important to trust your spouse, trusting too much is often and can be fatal.

 

[joshw10]

Originally posted by: Caveman

That money is actually being used for her treatment.

Want to know another interesting fact? Her most frequent visitor IS her husband. Not her parents, not any Church officials or congressmen or governors. To say that the money he got in 93' was used for his own desires is just plain wrong. I thought it was well known that's how her medical bills are paid.

Please show proof that none of the money he got in the settlement will be his to keep after Terri dies, or that the entirety of the funds have been exhausted at the point of her death.

You obviously have no clue what it costs to keep someone like Terri in a nursing home. A million dollars could have easily been spent so far.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Caveman
Again... No matter how many times a judge presides over a case won't change the flawed nature of the law. Obviously, the law leaves open too many loopholes, hence the strong division of opinion on the case.

It baffles me that in almost all discussion of the case, hardly anyone has questioned the obvious absurdity of the law on which the judge has to interpret. The "Rule of Law" here seems like what a few 3rd graders might come up with in their afterschool playhouse... "Well Mikey said it one night so it must be right"... The absurdity seems surreal. How about written proof? How about erroring on the side of preserving life? This is the flip side of the same coin that has sent innocent folks to death row without proper proof. These are really irrational, irresponsible things to do...

Actually, there seems to be little if any division of legal opinion in this case...

yeah, apparently there are decades of legal precedents of looking to the spouse (i.e., not the parents) in situations like this.