Well -- I don't agree with the decision -- though I never sat with all the facts before me as did the judge. (Remember, one reason we don't over-turn findings of facts by judges or juries very easily, is a recognition within the system that only the finder of fact can judge the credibility of the witnesses having had the opportunity to see them in Court and to have them subject to cross examination. That is why jury and factual findings by a judge sitting as fact finder are accorded such weight -- and rightfully so). Having said all that -- the determination in this case was NOT what did Michael want.
Indeed, the determination was what did Terri Schiavo want. In making that finding, the Court certainly did rely on the witness statement of Michael -- but it is important to understand the posture of the case. In this case, the Court has determined that Terri Schiavo did not want to be kept alive. So, in that sense, the Court has made a finding of fact on what it believes to be her wishes, and denying those wishes would be to deny Ms. Schiavo her right. In the end -- the Court applied Florida law, letting the husband serve as the guardian. It then made a factual determination that Terri wanted to die -- and in doing so is now upholding Terri's desire. (All the other Courts merely held that the judge did not abuse his discretion. Which, in essence, means that even if they don't agree with him, the facts were such that as a reasonable fact-finder he could have reached his conclusion based on the facts.)
The Schiavo family needed expert appellate advocates, and they desperately needed someone who understood the import of the Congressional legislation. They did not have that. In essence, Congress passed a law to help her -- and the Schindler attorney went to the Middle District and asked for something other than what the statute provided. The Court, of course, found that the cause of action was weak, and did not warrant the injunctive relief requested. It was a major blunder.
Just remember -- in the end, the only entity that could have saved her without a successful appeal, was the Florida legislature. They had a bill pending to that would have made it against Florida law to end the life of any person without an express written medical directive. In addition, the legislation could have been applied to the Schiavo case. The legislature voted it down. (Florida Senate 21-18). Several republicans voted against it, and when it died they went home for Easter to let Terri die. They are the parties who really stopped this thing.
So far as I can tell -- the Trial Judge made his decision on the only facts before him at the time. He rigorously applied Florida law -- even when we did not want him to. Then, the Federal Courts declined to overturn his finding, as they properly found no abuse of discretion and no properly plead Federal cause of action. The Court system worked perfectly. It was the system of laws enacted by the legislature that failed. The Congress should have mandated a de novo review, and applied the right to all cases like this in each state. That broad law would have been Constitutional, and it would have eliminated discretion. They were too chicken to do so. And, of course, the Florida legislature failed miserably at their task.
So far as I can tell -- the Trial Judge made his decision on the only facts before him at the time. He rigorously applied Florida law -- even when we did not want him to. Then, the Federal Courts declined to overturn his finding, as they properly found no abuse of discretion and no properly plead Federal cause of action. The Court system worked perfectly. It was the system of laws enacted by the legislature that failed. The Congress should have mandated a de novo review, and applied the right to all cases like this in each state. That broad law would have been Constitutional, and it would have eliminated discretion. They were too chicken to do so. And, of course, the Florida legislature failed miserably at their task.
This is where things get tricky. Obviously, Michael was Terri's guardian according to Florida law. However, we are getting into a bizarre realm when a judge ORDERS the death of a human being, based on LITERALLY nothing more than the guardian's recollections! In this case, the type of fact finding and proof normally associated with a civil court makes for a very, very poor decision.
I understand that technically speaking, the judge is only backing what Michael wanted done, enforcing the rights of the guardian. (In almost any other instance, this is exactly what a judge should be doing!) However, when the guardian is seeking to end the life of the person whom he is entrusted, and there is a serious and vigorous disagreement from other interested parties, then we have a situation where he is obligated, at least ethically speaking, to be a bit hesitant!
Is it what Terri wanted? It is extremely obvious that there's no way in hell anybody could possible know what she wanted, given the state she's in and the lack of any written will regarding the matter. Why didn't Greer just say NO! I don't think--even given the lower bar of proof in civil litigation--that there could be even reasonable assurance that Terri wanted to die. It seemed quite obvious (at least from what I've read here on FR) that Michael had some ulterior motives for wanting to end Terri's life.
But more disturbingly, can any judge, anywhere in this nation, even given the current laws on the books, in good conscious order someone's starvation? Whether or not they are coherent is immaterial, as this is a human being we're talking about.
Even if someone had written a will stating they would like to die of starvation (or whatever flowery jargon would appear in such a will...) if they ever were diagnosed with a hangnail, does that mean that a judge must enforce that person's request for a cruel and unusual death? Does any judge have that power?
Couldn't any of the appellate courts, seeing that this was a case to ultimately determine the end of a human life, realize that a standard a little bit more strict and vigorous is required than that normally used in civil cases? Even if the Schindler's lawyer's didn't do such a bang-up job, isn't it obvious to the appellate court judges that there is a problem, and that further review is necessary? But then again I did not read the briefs filed by the Schindler's lawyers, so perhaps they were bigger idiots than I realize.
But I do think it's a mistake to start writing laws and passing legislation based on this case alone. If Greer made a bad decision, which he obviously did, then one only needs a competent team of lawyers to point out the judge's error and get an appeal. I think the real issue here is the incompetence of the Schindler's attorneys, and the great skills of Micheal Schiavo's counsel.