Terry Shiavo Poll

[Sam Spade]

I say keep her alive.  Primarily a combination of what John Ford and bullmoose said.

[Sam Spade]

The husband isn't doing it for money.  He was offered $1 million to walk away and said no.  He is doing this because he truly believes Teri would want to die.

Here's the problem with his position:

His own conviction aside, he has no evidence that Teri actually wanted this!  There is no living will, no note scribbled on a cocktail napkin, no witnesses to the conversation, and she never relayed these feelings to another single human being at any point in her life.  We are supposed to believe that the wishes of the entire family, with the exception of this husband, should be discarded and an irrevocable decision to end Teri's life made should be made, solely on Micahel Schaivo's word that Teri told him she wanted to die and never suggested any such thing even to her parents or closest friends at any point in her entire life!  This is a bridge too far for me.

Michael Schaivo's whole case is based on hearsay, and would be dismissed by any competent  judge.  Instead, this goofball judge has made it the centerpiece of his ruling in favor of Michael!  This is the same judge who is ignoring a Congressional request for testimony from Teri Schaivo (Even if it is grandstanding, that doesn't affect the legal merits of the request), a Federal crime called Contempt of Congress.  This judge is either wholly ignorant of the law, or entirely willing to flout it to advance personal ideology.  It can't get any clearer than Contempt of Congress, pal.

Do not make a rash decision to end Teri's life on hearsay evidence against the wishes of her actual family.  I say actual family because Michael Schaivo is now living with another woman and has sired two children with her, so to me he is no longer part of her family in any real sense although he retains legal standing as her husband.

What John Ford just said here.  Hits the nail on the head and describes the case to a tee.

[Sam Spade]

What kind of precendent would this case set if she is allowed to die? Could husbands who beat their wives into comas lie to courts and say, "She wanted to be pulled off life support"? This whole case is based on hearsay and this judge is completely out of bounds. But that's not a suprise with the judges in this country anymore.

Well to me the key thing is that Michael Schiavo testified that Terri Schiavo told her that she would want to die in that situation.  No written proof, no records, no nothing.

And the judge ruled that Terri Schiavo wanted to die based on what her husband said.  No written proof, no records, no nothing.

Simply ridiculous.  In any court of law, in anything.  I don't have to be a lawyer to recognize the craziness of that ruling.

[Sam Spade]

This was the actual poll question in the ABC poll that showed a 70-29% result in whether Terri Schiavo should live or die.

"As you may know, a woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible."

Talk about a leading poll question, geez...

[Sam Spade]

Except that she is not on life support.

For the purpose of the law, gastric feeding tubes are classified as a medical intervention that is a form of life support.

Now, if you want to argue that the legal definition of life support and the like should be changed, fine do that, but under current law unless the parents succeed in their attempt to shop around for an activist judge who doesn't bother to follow law and precedent, this phase of this discussion will be over in a week or so as her body finally catches up with what her mind did 15 years ago.

Ironically feeding tubes were NOT considered life support 5-10 years ago in FL.

What changed that?  I honestly don't know much Florida law.