Replies

"Terri Schiavo’s wishes were honored today by yet another court that recognized her constitutionally protected right to refuse and withdraw medical treatment," said Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida.

The problem with this statement is that we do NOT know, for a fact, that this was Terri's wish. If we knew it, for a FACT, there would be no question as to her right to this outcome. In this case there are many people who know and love her who seriously doubt that Michael's word in this case is trustworthy.

Should we not be erring on the side of life, and not death? Doesn't the burden of proof rest with the ones who say that she would want to die, rather than with the ones who say that she would want to live? Sadly, Judge Greer has made it very clear that the family needed to be able to prove, with a greater degree of clearity, that Terri wished to live than Michael had to prove that she wished to die. I know ... some disagree with this analysis; but that is how it appears to me.

If I were caught in this circumstance my Advanced Directive states I do not wish to be maintained in a PVS. However, if I didn't have such an Advanced Directive, I would hope that the legal system would base its conclusion upon a more-sound standard than has been applied here; and, if any reasonable doubt existed, I would HOPE that my civil rights be as protected as the common criminal's. Yes, I know courts have claimed that Terri's civil rights have not been violated; horror of horrors of horrors, I'm afraid I disagree.

"The problem with this statement is that we do NOT know, for a fact, that this was Terri's wish..."

The husband, who obtained $700,000 plus to care for Terry for the rest of her life then got a common law wife and had two kids out of wedlock while refusing to divorce Terry and allowing her parents to care for her (in which case he would presumbaly lose approximately $700,000, or whatever monies were left from the funds meant to care for Terry, which he has used to pay for legal counsel to starve her to death). The whole thing is immoral and unseemly and possibly crminal. In other words, the "husband" is just the sort that the ACLU would lie in the guter with.