NationStates Jolt Archive

The whole Terry Shaivo case should have not been the whole ruckus it became. According to Florida law, this action required the justification by a living will made prior to her car accident. Neither her family or husband had ANY legal right to do ANYTHING beyond putting her in hospice care. The tax payers really have no say in the matter, since our hospital system is, in fact, privatized. The hospice staff should've kept their emotions in check did their jobs,being keeping her alive (they have attempted to take her of life support before)!Really,no one had any legal power or right to do anything. Now, you may argue that Mr. Shaivo did it "out of the love of his heart"; that may or may not be true, but answer me this: can you represent love on a legal document? The answer is no, so it doesn't hold up at all. In an ideal world, nothing would've happened; she would be still alive (I define life in general loosely; meaning functions of life being performed; how their performed matters little to me), the husband would've kept quiet; all because of a lack of a living will. But, what happened, happened. What're your opinions? My logic flawed, my reasoning flawed? Am I a "heartless bastard that would make a fine lawyer"? A retard? Or an opinion more constructive than that?

Naya, Legally sir, you do make some fine points. However if you are interested in moot, then I suggest you get your law school involved in the Trinity College Dublin Moot Trial, always good for a laugh...although if I hear Inner Templers utter one more 'My Lord in reference to the third section of the BUNDLE'.........Enough with the bundle..sorry brief rant..

Naya, Legally sir, you do make some fine points. However if you are interested in moot, then I suggest you get your law school involved in the Trinity College Dublin Moot Trial, always good for a laugh...although if I hear Inner Templers utter one more 'My Lord in reference to the third section of the BUNDLE'.........Enough with the bundle..sorry brief rant..

But I'm not in law school. I'm just a 16 year old slacker with an opinion! But, that Moot trial in Dublin sounds intriuging. Could you post a link?

What're your opinions? My logic flawed, my reasoning flawed? Am I a "heartless bastard that would make a fine lawyer"? A retard? Or an opinion more constructive than that?
Decisions have to be made, living will or no living will. Without a legal document saying otherwise the right to make those decisions falls on the next of kin, in this case her husband. And that, really, is all there is to it.

Most of Florida law regarding living wills and the like were made because of Terry Schiavo. She has been in that condition for fifteen years. Long before such legal issues were cut and dry.

Why won't this affaire die with the vegetable? Why? :rolleyes:

Decisions have to be made, living will or no living will. Without a legal document saying otherwise the right to make those decisions falls on the next of kin, in this case her husband. And that, really, is all there is to it. But in this case, inaction was the only legal action (a paradox, I know). However you if you show me information online showing otherwise, please do so.

Why won't this affaire die with the vegetable? Why? :rolleyes: And a vegetable is still alive so to speak, correct? ;)

And a vegetable is still alive so to speak, correct? ;)

No, it stopped being interesting years ago. Let this poor woman rest already and, please, stop taking the limelight from other, more important things with the inanity that is this whole affaire:

http://www.minimumsecurity.net/toons2005/5034.jpg

But in this case, inaction was the only legal action (a paradox, I know). However you if you show me information online showing otherwise, please do so.
It's a well known principle of law. You shouldn't ask for links as proof, since any one can write a website. For example: http://www.retakingamerica.com/commentary_kelly_020.html
is a stupid rant about how the law in Florida gives this right to Terry Schiavo's husband even though he's adulterous (and living in sin).

It's not really proof, proof would be me going to the Florida civil code and looking for the appropiate text, but I'm not going to do that.

But in this case, inaction was the only legal action

not according to every court decision on the case.

1. Heart attack, not a car accident.
2. Living wills weren't as visable as an important legal device for everyone when she had her accident.
3. She was young, mitigating number 2 even further.
4. You're wrong, the courts *all* agree.
5. President George W. Bush disagrees, or at least he did when he was Govenor of Texas and signed into law the practice of withdrawing medical support in the case of "hopeless" patients, including infants, reguardless of their parents wishes if they couldn't afford to pay for the medical care.
6. She was dead, for a long time, by every meaningful standard, her accident, and subsquent botched operation proved fatal. We tricked the sack of meat that was left into not-decaying for years.
7. The religious Christians used to believe any surgery was a violation of the sacred vessel that housed the soul, and a subversion of God's will, super-extra-especially heart surgery. Death took it's toll they changed their tune, presumably God did not (He was right the first time, right?).
8. It's not about what your transitory wishes of what the perfect world might be. It's about her wishes to pursue happiness in life. And her husband was able to prove to EVERY court, that wasn't ecclesiastical, what her wishes most likely were.
9. Even if she had a living will, that wouldn't have been an protection from her parents. They've said they would have sought to break it. It was never about their daughter or her well being, it was always about their cloying attempt to preserve their idea of her.
10. As it stands, unless you're a superstar at picking jurors, you'd be a crappy lawyer. "Ignore the laws and customs that bind us, I've got a dubiously articulated, patently emotional plea." tends to be somewhat less than persuasive.

But hey, time is on your side. Might want to join the debate team now though.

I thought about posting before, but...

*sighs*

The only thing that popped into my head was one phrase, repeating endlessly, set to the uhh, 'melody' of Judas Priest's "Breaking The Law".

Raking the Coals.

It's all I got on this one. I really don't want to get into the PVS of my brother-in-law again at the moment.

But I'm not in law school. I'm just a 16 year old slacker with an opinion! But, that Moot trial in Dublin sounds intriuging. Could you post a link?

Don't know if there is a link. I'm sure there is one I'm too lazy to go off and look and my browser is slow at the moment for some unknown apple reason jsut look up tcd website www.tcd.ie and go into the law school.
I've seen the last two moots. Highly entertaining. Juged by the top 5 justices in Ireland. The British crowd always present a good case but it appears that Kings Inn Ireland (where barristers{the ones who actually go to court} train) are the best!

The whole Terry Shaivo case should have not been the whole ruckus it became. According to Florida law, this action required the justification by a living will made prior to her car accident. Neither her family or husband had ANY legal right to do ANYTHING beyond putting her in hospice care. The tax payers really have no say in the matter, since our hospital system is, in fact, privatized. The hospice staff should've kept their emotions in check did their jobs,being keeping her alive (they have attempted to take her of life support before)!Really,no one had any legal power or right to do anything. Now, you may argue that Mr. Shaivo did it "out of the love of his heart"; that may or may not be true, but answer me this: can you represent love on a legal document? The answer is no, so it doesn't hold up at all. In an ideal world, nothing would've happened; she would be still alive (I define life in general loosely; meaning functions of life being performed; how their performed matters little to me), the husband would've kept quiet; all because of a lack of a living will. But, what happened, happened. What're your opinions? My logic flawed, my reasoning flawed? Am I a "heartless bastard that would make a fine lawyer"? A retard? Or an opinion more constructive than that?
Decisions have to be made, living will or no living will. Without a legal document saying otherwise the right to make those decisions falls on the next of kin, in this case her husband. And that, really, is all there is to it.
But in this case, inaction was the only legal action (a paradox, I know). However you if you show me information online showing otherwise, please do so.

Basic misconceptions about the law here. Under the US Constitution, Ms. Schiavo had a right to refuse medical treatment.

Under Florida law, when there is no written advance directives and the affected person is incompetent and unable to communicate, F.S. 765 (http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0765/titl0765.htm) provides for a substituted judgment by the Court for such decisions on the basis of clear and convincing evidence to demonstrate the intentions of the person.

Although the statutes provide for substitute decisions on other grounds and for guardians to make decisions about termination of treatment -- under Court supervision -- neither set of statutes actually played a role here.

Ms. Schiavo was allowed to refused forcible medical treatment and thereby die on the grounds that those were her wishes.

The courts determined by clear and convincing evidence:

1. Ms. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.

2. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to refuse medical treatment under these circumstances.

3. Ms. Schiavo would have wished to die under these circumstances.


Ms. Schiavo was not allowed to die merely because her husband wished it or because he was her guardain. She was allowed to refuse forcible medical treatment because that would be her wishes.

Ms. Schiavo's parents received an extraordinary amount of judicial review of facts #1 - #3 and the underlying law. Federal and state courts reviewed this case many, many times over 7 years. All have agreed that points #1 - #2 were established by clear and convincing evidence.

Here are prior posts explaining this at length with links to several of the relevant state and federal court decisions.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8520404&postcount=404
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8541184&postcount=591

Why won't this affaire die with the vegetable? Why? :rolleyes:
Well, at least there is one voice of reason.

Why won't this affaire die with the vegetable? Why? :rolleyes:

There are several people on here (in addition to in the public at large) that made allegations regarding Mr. Schiavo and his treatment of his wife that were slanderous and despicable.

They refused to withdraw those allegations despite a complete lack of evidence. They claimed the autopsy would prove them right.

At least some of the NS accusers said they would publicly apologize if the autopsy showed they were wrong.

They were wrong. Now we will see if they have any honor.