Bill, like you I think the Congress should have stayed out of it, but what it did was not unconstitutional, just mistaken. (See http://www.donaldsensing.com/2005/03/did-peggy-lead-them-wrong.html)

There is presently no legal requirement to have even a post-mortem will. How on earth can a conservative support a federal mandate requiring a living will? Smacks of nanny-ism government to me.

None of this - Terri's present case or your proposed remedy - is federal business, and the federal government should not be permitted to have a role, much less an expanded one.

Good show, Bill. This is spot on.

None of the legislation that you wish for is within the Constitutional power of Congress. These are matters for the states to sort out as they see fit.

Your suggestion about the burden of proof and admissable evidence in these cases is interesting, but it will inevitably lead to people having medical care given to them against their express wishes. You may be unconcerned about this, but I think it is by no means a negligible downside. In other words, an ideal topic for the federalist laboratory.

Your wish to require that every American have a living will strikes me as the worst kind of legislative over-reaching. The absurdity of this demand is illustrated by asking what penalty would you propose for people who don't have a living will. Will it be a felony? Or will a simple fine satisfy you? How big a fine? How, pray tell, will the living will enforcers go about determining whether you have one or not? Will there be a special exception to the physician/patient privilege to allow htem to search you medical records and interrogate your doctors?

How about a back-up, default instrument that is automatically invoked if there is no living will. Every state does that now for your personal and real property. If you die intestate, there is a default "will" under state law that determines how your assets are to be distributed among possible heirs. Do something similar for people without a living will; in that case, the state's standard "living will" would be automatically invoked.

Suggestion 1 makes sense. Suggestion 2 would probably be the Lawyers' Full Employment Act of 2005 and would be very difficult to enforce.

"fitting memorial" ... don't count her dead yet.

Bill, this is the problem. She's unable to feed herself but she is not dead. She can communicate in her own way. She is not in a coma.

Somewhere in all of this, Terri has quit being human and has become a political cause (for various sides). That may be the saddest part.

Thomas Sowell nails it...

"If the tragic case of Terri Schiavo shows nothing else, it shows how easily "the right to die" can become the right to kill. It is hard to believe that anyone, regardless of their position on euthanasia, would have chosen the agony of starvation and dehydration as the way to end someone's life.

A New York Times headline on March 20th tried to assure us: "Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death" but you can find experts to say anything. In a December 2, 2002 story in the same New York Times, people starving in India were reported as dying, "often clutching pained stomachs."

No murderer would be allowed to be killed this way, which would almost certainly be declared "cruel and unusual punishment," in violation of the Constitution, by virtually any court.

Terri Schiavo's only crime is that she has become an inconvenience -- and is caught in the merciless machinery of the law. Those who think law is the answer to our problems need to face the reality that law is a crude and blunt instrument.

Make no mistake about it, Terri Schiavo is being killed. She is not being "allowed to die."

"Would I want to be kept alive in Terri Schiavo's condition? No. Would I want to be killed so slowly and painfully? No. Would anyone? I doubt it."

" The fervor of those who want to save Terri Schiavo's life is understandable and should be respected, even by those who disagree. What is harder to understand is the fervor and even venom of those liberals who have gone ballistic -- ostensibly over state's rights, over the Constitutional separation of powers, and even over the sanctity of family decisions.

These are not things that liberals have any track record of caring about. Is what really bothers them the idea of the sanctity of life and what that implies for their abortion issue? Or do they hate any challenge to the supremacy of judges -- on which the whole liberal agenda depends -- a supremacy that the Constitution never gave the judiciary?

If nothing else comes out of all this, there needs to be a national discussion of some humane way to end life in those cases when it has to be ended -- and this may not be one of those cases."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20050322.shtml

I concur with your policy, but Congress really has no jurisdiction and no business involving itself -- this is plainly in the purview of the States.

Nothing in The Constitution gives the congress the power to pass these laws you propose. They have already intervened where they had no constitutional right. These are still powers reserved to the states or to the people.

I think there's more than a little irony in needing to pass a law saying that hearsay like Michael's is not admissible in medical decisions like this.

But keep the government out of the business of mandating living wills. The last thing I want is some "enlightened" judge or doctor making up their own interpretation of whatever I put in it, or reading in something I never intended.

I'm certainly no legal expert, but wouldn't the left complain that any such law would be a violation of personal freedoms?

What congress and the president did was allow Shiavo's case to be heard in Federal Court. Nothing more, nothing less. People would do well to remember that.

She did have a living will. It was an oral living will (which is legal in Florida), tried by the court and judged to be valid.

I agree on your points that we don't know the intentions of the two married folks involved.

However, most people would agree that starving a person to death is considered cruel and inhumane. We don't starve dogs, horses and other animals to death in America. We don't starve to death any of our convicted murderers with death sentences. We should not starve to death a patient in a hospice.

I agree that more needs to be done on living wills. I'd prefer the laws be at the state-level and not at the federal level.

Perhaps the laws should provide the choice of having a living will or having life terminated under a state specific living will, that applies to those not filing a living will. Living wills should be subject to HIPAA and not disclosed to health insurance companies.

I fail to understand this
claim that the Congress acted
unconstitutionally. Appellate
jurisdiction is one of the enumerated
powers of Congress in the Constitution.
You may argue that they acted unwisely
but no unconstitutionally.

I find your suggestion about compulsory living willls to be troublesome. For me, the Schiavo case is about freedom and choice. The US Government exists to maintain and protect my freedom. The US Government does not grant me freedom - God does that.

Terri Schiavo chose Michael as her husband. She gave him the right to be her voice and make her decisions for her in these kinds of situations. How can we say that we believe in the sanctity of marriage but say that a spouse does not have the right to make these kinds of decisions? It seems to me that having a spouse sign a living will granting their husband/wife these kinds of rights is redundant. Isn't that what was already done when the couple went before God to bless their union and signed a legally binding marriage contract?

The real issue here is whether society will accept the removal of a feeding tube. Period.

Terri does have a living will, of the traditional sort. It's called a 'husband'. If the circumstances were reversed, she would be Michael's living will. That's what marriage is. That's why it's important. They chose to bind their lives together and give each other this extraordinary power over each other in dire circumstances. Terri would only need a written living will if she did not trust Michael to do his duty by her and act in her interests in this matter.

"(Blah, blah, blah)...and in the meantime, I guess it's ok to kill her by starvation, 'cause I don't know any better."

Great, Bill.

I like the idea of requiring a living will. I suspect that most people don't have them because the subject is simply so distasteful to them. ("That's why I said 'untimely demise' instead of 'death!'")

Still, I find the aversion to an Act of Congress in this case a little overblown. We conservatives are unhappy about judges legislating (about this state judge legislating); we surely shouldn't be upset about legislators legislating.

As for federalism, I'm afraid that the issues there are simply so muddled that drawing a bright line where an individual's life is at stake seems arbitrary. Especially when it comes to the Florida judiciary...

So she should die unnecessarily, victim of judicial murder, but next time...next time we'll get it right. She's still alive, and their's an opportunity to save her life. And you say too bad? The documentation is more important than a human life?
Your opinion is subhuman.

OK, I was with you until I got to "And I would like to see Congress pass and the President sign a second law - call it the Terri Schiavo Living Will Act of 2005 - that would require all Americans age 18 and up have a signed, notarized, legal living will, and update it every five years.".

So that means you want to fine, imprison, or otherwise punish people who don't want to do a living will? You really want to give the government that power? How long before a law is passed requiring the will be done by an attorney. And if someone can't afford an attorney the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

What is wrong with just leaving well enough alone and doing as you suggested at first. In the absence of a living will all decisions will favor life.

I was sympathetic until I hit "that would require all Americans age 18 and up have a signed, notarized, legal living will, and update it every five years."

Required? With what penalty for noncompliance? Is the government paying for legal and notary costs? Will there be some new bureaucracy to handle this work?

Thank you Bill for being a voice of reason. So much of conservative radio, Hannity, Rush, Laura, etc. are banging the drum on this. It's a personal tragedy with no heroes. This woman has been dead for 15 years, let her body die.

I'd settle with a line of succession for making the decisions and a one shot court case to challenge.

I'm not so eager to enact a law that would require a living will. How would you penalize those who don't have them?

If Mr. Schiavo has made ANY effort to see his wife revived (like he said he would during the lawsuit that brought him $750,000 for his wife's lifelong care), or if he had said in court that his wife didn't want to live like that, so the jury shouldn't provide money for her lifelong care, I would consider it possible that he was acting with good faith.

Neither of those things have happened.

He could get on with his life by divorcing her. He hasn't done that. It would cost him money if he did that.

Yet he is still "engaged" to a woman, and has fathered two children with her.

If there's anything worthwhile about him, he's done a good job hiding it.

Congress is trying to keep a judge from murdering a woman to benefit her husband. Good for Congress.

I like the two laws you propose (ummm, it's not hypocritical that I don't have a living will, is it?), but disagree with your judgment on Congress.
Yes, what Congress accomplished for Terri was nothing. However, your view that it is "too complex, too multilayered, and too steeped in unknown or unknowable facts" for anyone to know with a preponderance of certainty what Terri would want is about the best that Michael should hope to get. I read about the Schiavo case years ago and felt that it was Michael who should have been facing the death penalty, not Terri. That early reading definitely colored my view of the case. The last day or so I've seen enough testimony for Michael that I'm willing to admit there might be more to his side than I originally learned. But growing sympathy or not, I simply cannot approach a view of "...so let's starve her for weeks until nature takes its course." Moreover, it baffles me that everyone who has any power in this case comes to that horrid conclusion. And with the MSM trumpeting ABC's poll that the majority of Americans feel the same way makes me think I've been transported to another world. I am delighted, however, that enough members of our legislature care more about doing what is right than what might not be legal. As much as I admire the Constitution, its drafters, and our system of government, if they are wrong then screw them! Is that dangerous, can it be abused? Of course, but so can confining yourself to what is constitutional or legal.
Thanks for the soapbox, and keep up your fine commentary...MU

I would like to see Congress pass, and the President sign, a law that says if any person who has no living will comes to be in a position where a living will would be helpful, any decision in a squabble or dispute over her care must err on the side of maintaining life, and hearsay evidence such as that offered by Michael Schiavo would not be admissable.

That's nice. I assume that this would trump laws like the Texas law that allows insurance companies and hospitals to pull the plug on patients that are on respirators or feeding tubes, regardless of the wishes of the guardian. Especially with minors, like infants.

I guess I'm wondering who's going to pay for this law when the money runs out. Let's spend those Medicaid and Medicare tax dollars even faster for absolutely zero or close to it results. I guess we can just shove the expense on the poor guardians. They'll have to pay for it eventually, with the new bankruptcy law now in effect.

As far as the second law go, yeah, that's what I want, the Government telling me what to do, write that living will (might as well force me to write a regular will too), tell me not to look at porn, masterbations bad for you, force me into making contributions to a (private or personal, whatever the word of the day is) account so that the Government can save Social Security, make sure that I'm at my ideal weight and not obese, make sure that I take the correct drugs, make sure that I can't smoke, or make any incorrect choices as far as my health care is concerned (whatever that might be...)...

Some commenters have raised the objection that Congress doesn't have the authority to mandate every American have a living will. I disagree. I think it would fit nicely under "provide for the general welfare."

But if not, then surely Congress could mandate a "default" living will (as Byorn suggested above) for all Americans who don't have one, as guidance to the medical community and to the courts. A codified basic level of care and a codified set of rules for ceasing various types of care.

And that law should state that a person's individual living will supercedes the state's default living will in all cases without deviation or intervention by family or courts.

I concur with your policy, but Congress really has no jurisdiction and no business involving itself -- this is plainly in the purview of the States.

Plainly? What law in this entire country is "plainly" the purview of the states? How often does the US Government override state courts? (Election 2000, anyone?)

I can think of one law, applicable here, that is "plainly" in the purview of the federal government:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Required? With what penalty for noncompliance? Is the government paying for legal and notary costs? Will there be some new bureaucracy to handle this work?

I see a couple of commenters went into high dudgeon mode over this. Why? We're required to have car insurance, a driver's license to drive the roads, a social security card, etc. What is wrong with requiring a living will?

The reason to do this is to avoid someone dying needlessly. The arguments over whether she is really in a PVS, etc., have already been hashed. The point is that there is some doubt here, or the parents wouldn't be pushing this court case.

Isn't it government's job to protect its citizens? Isn't that what this is?

TV (Harry)

Don't be absurd, Bryan Price. A law requiring adults to have a living will actually PROTECTS your personal freedom to make your own medical decisions even after you become incapacitated.

I suspect many Americans would chose a living will that mandates that the "plug" be "pulled" in many cases where, without one, the plug remains plugged in. The would reduce healthcare costs, not increase them.

And no living will should result in requiring healthcare providers to provide uncompensated care.

I would suggest commenters stop focusing on my specific suggestions - they were made off-the-cuff in a five-minute period of writing. Focus on the larger question: How do we prevent future cases such as this where the complete facts and truth are unknowable?

Step 1: Ban "oral" living wills unless they are audio- or video-recorded.

Thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down, thumbs down, lawyers first!

What I find very strange about this argument is the people who say starving to death is inhumane, but then want to keep her alive in the state she is in. Imagine if you were trapped in that body. do not tell me anyone sane would want to go on living like that for what? another 30 years? Starvation is inhumane but I would take that over the alternative. She has been an ivalid for more then 10 years already.

Like Bill said, we do not know this Michael guys motives. But were it my wife, I could not stand by thinking she was trapped in there, while her mother refused to let go. I would fight to end it in anyway I could. To do otherwise would be inhumane.

if Terri woke up everyone would be happy - but now we have lost a large portion if not all our privacy rights...because congress can now single you out and stick a feeding tube in you...

The case is very difficult. What has transpired over the years is a striking advancement in medical science. In 1955 this woman would have long been dead. Now, half a century later, the situation is very different.

There is no medical expert who will testify that Ms. Schiavo will recover. Nothing, today, will bring her back. But if she is kept alive another ten years would some unknown miraculous cure restore her function? Would "pulling the plug" be criminal or humane? The future is unknowable. The courts, however, have done a good job of working with a changing society and technology.

The case should reinforce the personal responsibility of each individual to have their affairs in order, without government mandate. To do otherwise leaves oneself a burden on society.

I'm interested that people post things like this:

The doctor: "This woman has been dead for 15 years, let her body die. "

Shanktified: "Terri has quit being human."

Terri Schiavo is not brain dead, but it appears she's not conscious enough to be considered one of us. Therefore, we may as well "let" her die. That's it, right?

... Never mind that she is not actually dying, and that we have to stop feeding her in order to "let" her die.

Could both of you tell me why advanced Alzheimer's patients should not receive the identical treatment?

***
Jim Doherty, you appear to argue that a living would not even be necessary.

The federal government has every right to step in. If the term "cruel and unusual punishment" has any meaning at all, it needs to apply to someone, convicted of no crime, who is under a sentence of death, and in fact is being starved to death.

You'd go to jail if you starved a dog to death. But you can starve a human being with the blessings of a couple of judges and a husband with an *obvious* conflict of interest. What's the matter with some of you people? You should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm ashamed for you.

Jett-Parmer, you assert that Terri would have been dead, had this occurred in 1955.

That's just flat-out wrong. All she needs is food and water. She was being spoonfed until her husband ordered the tube instead.

Her visitors are now being frisked to make sure they don't have any food with them. Get it? If I walked in there right now with a bowl of jello for her, the judge could have me arrested.

What part of this is right?

"The case should reinforce the personal responsibility of each individual to have their affairs in order, without government mandate. To do otherwise leaves oneself a burden on society."

Only because society has accepted it.

Jim Doherty, you appear to argue that a living WILL would not even be necessary in such cases.

PIMF

The only good thing about Terry Schiavo's situation is the irony.Starvation as the course of treatment for a condition caused by an eating disorder.
Oh and liberals standing by the legal notion of a wife as property of her husband.

I wouldn't go as far as to "update it every five years" to codify it. If I would require it anywhere, it would be upon marriage. Before marriage, unless circumstances are strange, you would most likely fall to the jurisdiction of your parents, and there wouldn't be a huge deal - they'd decide what they wanted and go with that.

I think your "basic" living will idea is good - go with that, but if you don't like it, supercede it with your own noterized living will.

This case is really about euthanasia, in a complicated situation where we don't know what the patient would want and the family is bitterly divided. (I really wish he would just divorce her and let her parents decide.)

If we're gonna allow euthanasia, can't we at least do it by giving her a lethal injection of morphine or something? Starvation and dehydration seems like a pretty barbaric method to me. (Sure, she probably can't feel much. But she's not unconscious, she's just severely brain damaged.) How could anybody who supports starving her oppose killing her in a more humane fashion?

If we're going to allow euthanasia, then let's at least own up to what we're doing and do it as humanely as we can.

Wow... I pretty much said the same sort of things this morning... two many special interests who are using this case as their "cause" have muddied the waters.

I Just Don't Know

The Constitution does NOT specify that the Congress sets the jurisdiction of the federal courts. Appellate jurisdiction is NOT one of the enumerated powers of Congress in the Constitution.

Article 1 section 8 of the constitution states that "The Congress shall have the power to constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court". This does not allow the Congress to set jurisdiction, only to establish the appellate courts.

Article 3 section 2 states that "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, treaties made..." This establishes the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts as limited to Constitutional matters and Federal law (which must also pass Constitutional muster).

Thus the law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush is unconstitutional.

Jorge Porrata and Michael Couvillion offer a wonderful argument for any man who has ever been convicted of murdering his wife. Apparently, after entering into marriage, she is his to dispose of as he wills. I am sure that this argument will give comfort to many others who observe the sanctity of marriage as closely as Michael Schiavo has.

Bostonian, you are right.

Look I havent followed this case so I am missing a few things. some people have elluded to a conflict of interest. I was under the impression that he is still married to Terry. But then I hear he has remarried and has other kids etc.

does this guy look to gain anything by her death? I doubt it.

All I know is that were I in his shoes, I would be doing the same thing. And all the same people would be demonizing me, for their own personal political reasons. I am a republican, but the republican lleadership truely screwed the pooch on this topic.

Again, if you think Terry would want to live on like this, you are either off in the head, or just using this issue for political capital.

Let her go. Is it inhumane to starve her? Yes. But it is more inhumane to force her to live on like this for another 30 years. Sheesh, who here would choose that? No one, so why the screaming about how she is supposedly alive? That is not life, and forcing her to endure it does not help your right to life/abortion argument one bit. I find many of these arguments disgusting, and I had to find some place to be heard. Godspeed Terry.

Bill wrote, "Some commenters have raised the objection that Congress doesn't have the authority to mandate every American have a living will. I disagree. I think it would fit nicely under "provide for the general welfare."

But everything you can think of fits under that rubric. Congress could pass a law prohibiting anyone from weighing more than 110 percent of NIH recommendations - hey, why not? It "provides for the general welfare." The idea that the Founders had in mind federal micromanagement of personal decisions when they signed the Consitution is just untenable.

Bill, why wouldn't the law Congress passed also fall under the "provide for general welfare" clause?

I don't think that Congress should be involved in this. But I don't like the idea of a woman being tortured to death by starvation/dehydration even more. I wish the judge had shown the stones to sentence her to death by lethal injection. At least that way it would be painless.

"I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing."

Regardless of whether Congres "did the wrong thing" it had the Consitutional power to pass that Federal Law which provided:

"The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a
suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the
alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the
Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the
withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment
necessary to sustain her life."

Note the key terms "Constitution or laws of the United States."

This law merely gave the District Court the jurisdiction (under Article III) to review this case for violations of Federal law (laws of the United States) and the US Constitution and to provide a remedy if a violation was found. It is Constitutional.

Will a Federal Court hold that this law is unconstitutional? Unlikely.

I do know that the Congress did the wrong thing, intervened where it had no Constitutional right, and solved nothing.

What the hell are you talking about? A state judge ordered a woman to be starved to death!

Section 1 of the 14th Am reads, in part:

No State shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are serious questions as to whether this woman has been afforded due process. If you're not aware of that, you need to get yourself up to speed on the facts of the case.

Furthermore, Section. 5 reads:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What Congress has done (at the behest of the woman's family -- excluding the guy who is in a comman law relationship with another woman, with whom he's fathered two children, and who, by the way, stands to get rich if she dies) is perfectly within the bounds of its Constitutional authority. You don't know what you're talking about, Bill.

While I wish Mr Schiavo would turn Terri over to her parents, it is not true that a Florida judge "ordered" that Terri Schiavo be starved. The courts in Florida ruled that he was properly exercising his right to uphold her orally-stated living will.

We are executing Terri Schiavo in a manner so cruel that it would be illegal to do it to a dog or cat. At the very least, she should be given a lethal dose of sodium pentothal so that whatever remains of her isn't being tortured to death. While I don't agree with Congressional interference, I do think this whole disturbing episode reflects terribly on us as a society and today, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed to be an American.

Terri Schiavo has only been declared to be in a PVS for 7 years. The was the first step her husband took in order the get her off nutrition. There are several test for PVS and none of them are completely fool proof. The Florida State courts have failed her by not having her husband have all of the tests run (only one test has been done). I agree that congress should have butted out, but I think the USAG should have taken this to federal court under the Fourtenth Admendment and force the Florida Courts to have all the tests taken to see if she really is most probably "dead". If she isn't starvation is a horrible way to go.

What really bugs me in this case is that Michael has a huge pecuniary interest in this case. I would trust him more if no or little money was involved.

A lot of folks are saying we should at the least kill her in some humane way. we can not. It is against the law.

so the only way we can actually show her any mercy is to allow her to starve to death. this is what the right to life people get. Dont get me wrong, I am a conservative. But when either side chooses to never compromise, this is the result.

Pro abortion people are now feeling the heat when people are being charged for murder when they an unborn fetus/baby. Now people who fought assisted suicide and called it barbaric are seeing someone tortured because they refused any middle ground.

We all deserve some of this shame.

And now that I know that the husband looks to make money on this, I take back my support of him, yet I agree with his cause, for Terry's sake. Twisted.

The state judge ordered her feeding tube removed, which means she will starve to death. Who says this is what she wanted? That this was her "orally-stated" living will? Not her parents or siblings or friends. Only the guy who stands to inherit a whole lot of money if she dies. As far as I'm concerned -- and as her parents surely see it -- he abnegated his right as a husband to speak for her when he "moved on" over a decade ago.

Every day there are many families facing the same issue. It is usually handled without court battles and most commonly, everyone involved supports the decision to withdraw life support (respirator, feeding tube, etc) or not.

I recall twice in my own family where such decisions were made.

My wife manages a nursing home. Whenever a resident is transfered to a hospital one of the questions always is, "have they signed a DNR?"

These are signed by the patient or, if the patient cannot, by someone to whom they have given power of attorney.

The doctors can't make the decision by themselves. It has to be agreed to by the patient or his appointed next of kin.

Three or four times a year in my own small circle someone I know of's life support is discontinued when it would likely be possible to keep them "alive" much longer.

It is very very common and is usually handled with dignity after serious consideration of the professionals, next of kin or layperson responsible without requiring lawyers, judges or bloggers.

I think it is horrible that we'all have inserted ourselves into this family's problems.

I have no quarrel with the parents or the husband. I'm sure they are all good people trying to do what they think is right.

It's none of our business.

The really nifty thing about it is that every day that goes by, Michael Schaivo loses money. He got a set amount for his medical settlements and he will get a set amount of life insurance when Terri dies. It costs him a particular amount each day to keep her alive, mitigated only partially by his insurance plan.
The faster she dies, the more money he gets.
He did turn down a one million dollar offer to divorce Terri, so likely he still stands to make more than that.

(And I'm not even getting into the theories on 'what actually happened to cause Terri's brain damage'.)

The poster Dougger above quotes part of Article 3, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution. Below is the complete text of that clause. IANAL, but Dougger left off the last sentence, which is one that give Congress its authority here.

Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

If I were to write a living will I would ask to be euthanized if I were in her situation. Not starved, but euthanized.

I agree with you in that congress had no business interfering in this case.

Must disagree with you however regarding the idea of making a law that would:

"require all Americans age 18 and up have a signed, notarized, legal living will, and update it every five years. The law also would require courts, doctors and families to follow the directives of a patient's living will without deviation."

The federal govnernment is already too powerful and already over-reaching enough without making them more intrusive ...

When it comes to government count me with Thomas Jefferson as one of those "that government governs best which governs least" people.

I doubt Michael Shiavo stands to inherit much.

$750,000 awarded for care and treatment of Terri. Average cost per year for the care of a PVS patient is around $100k, it's been 15 years...

He's been offered, separately, $1 million and $10 million to pass his guardianship on to her parents. He's refused to do so.

Can we drop the money issue then? Especially since the first time money even came up was from Terri's parents, during the first guardianship proceedings, where they stated that they had a falling out with Michael because he didn't share his court award with them.

Not that it would matter if he passed his guardianship. The courts have ruled that it would have been Terri's wish to discontinue treatment. They didn't give approval for Michael to pull the plug, they've stated that Terri would want the plug pulled, and they've ordered the tube removed based on her wishes. At this point, if Michael passed guardianship NOTHING would change that.

Dennis, where Dougger went wrong is in assuming that this isn't a Constitutional matter, which it clearly is. See the 14th Am.

Two seasoned conlaw types (the second in the UPDATE: section) that the law is constitutional---but bad policy: Here.

I think it's too late to worry about constitutionality. I don't think that most of the New Deal was constitutional, but we still have Social Security.

I do think it's strange that nobody can have standing to challenge a guardian's appointment, if that is why the Fla courts have ruled against Terri's parents. The husband seems to have some clearcut conflicts of interest, and I can't see why the court couldn't appoint a visitor, alienist or guardian ad litem to look into the best interests of the patient, in cases where a spouse has little or no interest in keeping her alive. I would like to see all the allegations cleared up, because otherwise this will likely waste a lot more time, acrimony and effort. I haven't seen anything that clears up the apparent conflict between his wanting the trust funds for himself and consenting to her death. I saw a doctor the other night who had treated Terri and said that she was responsive and could follow instructions. I have a hard time squaring that with so many judges ruling that she's in a PVS.

Requiring a living will only offers an illusion that things are in control again. In the real world, a sheet of paper means nothing.

I worked for two years with children fighting leukemia. Viewed from the outside, these children--as pale, emaciated as victims of a Nazi concentration camp--seemed to be living through something no one would want to endure. But placed in those sorts of situations, you'd be surprised what people do. Those children fought and clung to life with impressive courage.

The same can be said of major disabilities or advanced age. What we say we want in good health and what we are willing to accept in ill health and disability are often radically different.

--Mike Perry, editor, Eugenics and Other Evils

Jett-Parmer: "Would 'pulling the plug' be criminal or humane?"

- The point that frequently seems to be lost is that this is not a matter of "pulling the plug" as it is commonly understood, anymore than failing to feed an older senile patient would be. This matter involves the witholding of food and fluids from an otherwise physically healthy person.

Michael Couvillion: "Terri does have a living will, of the traditional sort. It's called a 'husband'."

- Actually, what you seem to be implying is that the marriage contract acts as a durable power of attourney, a position I doubt would receive much acceptance in the court.

Stan: "congress can now single you out and stick a feeding tube in you"

- This sentiment could just as well be reversed as "the court can single you out and remove a feeding tube from you." I don't necessarilly agree with Congressional action, but don't think this characterization is spot-on.

Jim Doherty: "Imagine if you were trapped in that body. do not tell me anyone sane would want to go on living like that for what? another 30 years? Starvation is inhumane but I would take that over the alternative."

- My nephew has severe Cerebral Palsy and receives his nutrition via a feeding tube. Your argument seems to fit his condition almost as well, considering he has "been an ivalid for more then 10 years already." Should we just starve him to death too because we wouldn't want to be like him? It's very easy to say "I wouln't want to live like that" when you don't have to. When faced with no choice, will you feel the same? The VA is filled with brave young soldiers who once felt they'd rather not come home at all then come home half a man. I am struck by the arrogance with which your judgement from a position of health is made concerning the desires, wishes and sanity of a woman who cannot communicate.

Jim Doherty: "I hear he has remarried and has other kids etc. [D]oes this guy look to gain anything by her death?"

- Actually he hasn't divorced and remarried, he just has a live-in girlfriend and two kids. As to why he hasn't divorced her, some speculate it is related to the $1M+ settlement he received for "medical care" that will revert to him upon her death.

Forcing people to make a living will? You can't do that. I for one don't want one. I don't want to think about it. Unreasonable? Maybe, but I have a right to be unreasonable.

By the way, There were three other witnesses who testified about Terri's stated wishes besides Michael: a friend of hers, an uncle of hers, and her brother-in-law. This and many other facts can be gleaned by reading the existing and voluminous court record, something I recommend over reading the advocacy sites and even the news accounts. This case is nowhere near as difficult or as close a call as it has been made out to be. There have been and there will be in the future many agonizingly difficult cases (and laws should be made to deal with them). This case, however, is not one of them.

Is it better to commit state-sponsored murder than to allow this woman to live another minute because she's not in a state that some people on this thread would want to be in?

If Terri's unaware of her surroundings and so severely brain-damaged that she'll never recover then what's so awful about allowing her parents to take her home and care for her until she dies of natural causes? After all, in such a state she wouldn't know anyway. Unless you actually think she's aware of her surroundings, and can hear and feel. If you do and still want her starved to death then our society has become morally bankrupt. No better than Hitler's Germany.

Until Friday, Terri was not dying. She is a mentally handicap woman. The judge has ordered that no soothing moisture can be applied to her dry lips or tongue -- how cruel and sad.

When Terri dies, we can no longer claim to be a society that believes in the sanctity of life. We've become no better than Europe that puts the quality of life first.

Leonson,

You are not correct; Michael cannot accept those donations because besides the fact it casts him a VERY bad light (possibly adding to evidence that could be used against him in a criminal cased based on some affidavit testimony from nurses who say he may have tried to kill Terri by injecting her with insulin) he does not have the power to do what the donatees have asked him to. Once the determination was made, only the court has that power.

The only way Michael gains financially is by letting his wife die in a very cruel manner.

Anyone have any idea or stats on how many people are let to die in hospitals and have no written living will? I had a good friend with terminal ovarian cancer and she simply told her doc not to feed her. Took a while but she died.

Many of these comments talk about life, starvation etc but ignore the husband and wife relationship as though her family and their views take precedence. In fact, TV reported that her family had at one point stated that no matter what she might state they would not allow her to die...mommy knows best, right?

Jim Doherty -- When you claim it to be self-evident that Terri wouldn't want to live, you're looking at it from the perspective of yourself, right now, with a normally functioning brain, decent health (presumably) etc.

But how does she view her situation? We don't know.

My dog doesn't wish she were dead because she can't talk or reason like a human being.

My grandmother, who has severe dementia, doesn't wish she were dead because she lives in a kind of permanent hallucination.

I've seen the video clips of Terri online. She appears to smile. She appears to feel emotions. Granted her experience is greatly circumscribed. But perhaps it is fulfilling for her within those constraints. Perhaps she sleeps, wakes, feels love for her family during their visits, sleeps again, dreams.

We have many stories of people who are horribly injured in accidents but continue to fight to live. The desire to live is a powerful thing. It's easy to say, in conversation with someone "whatever you do, don't let me live like that--I'd rather be dead" -- but the fact is, none of us posting here knows what it would be like to be in that condition.

To my thinking, the ability to withdraw "life support" technology from people represents a relatively new potential murder weapon. As such, I think there is some role for our government here, in the same way our government has laws intended to discourage us from murdering each other in old-fashioned ways.

To me, that's where the moral fulcrum is. And that's why we have failed Terri Shiavo.

I'm somewhat surprised that your statement made it to instapundit. You're flat out wrong on may issues. You're flat wrong on the constitutionality issue. Congress was specifically mandated to make law guiding how we live our lives. The law they passed merely required a due process test on the federal level. They asked for a federal review of the case. Nothing more. So you're clearly confused about the law they passed. Furthermore, what is clear about the Schiavo case is that it screams out for a more in-depth examination. How many doctors examined Terry? The court documents indicate the origianl decision was based on an examination by a single physician. That's pathetic. And why did her husband wait seven years after the brain injury to assert her right to die? (Seven years with no therapy!) Given that there are so very many unanswered questions and given that there is significant doubt regarding her wishes why are you in such a hurry to pull the plug. What is your standard for people scheduled for execution? Why is your standard of examination so very different for a person who is alive, who has people to take care of her and provide her therapy (obviously not her husband) and pay all the bills. A person who is innocent of everything but being disabled and being married to Mr. Schiavo. Some how that later part is sufficient to waive a decent examination and have her starve to death. I don't get it. Please explain.

Could the husband's conflict of interest be removed? Could the judgement that was to be for Terri's life long care could be reclaimed by the person/organization that paid the money? By allowing her to die, is he invalidating the trust that was set up? Any thoughts?

Why not add a brief "living will" option to the driver's license application/renewal form, to be checked yes or no?

To receive a driver's license in my state, one already has to choose whether or not do be an organ donor, so this seems a small step.

In the absence of a more specific living will, the driver's license choice would be legally binding.

Bill, are you out of your freaking mind? Have you ever read the constitution? If you had, you would know that Congress has the power to determine the jurisdiction of the federal court. All they did was allow her to get a hearing in a federal court. This woman is not brain dead but severely brain damaged and being starved to death. Your position on this is disgusting and immoral. We might as well be like the Nazis.

Glen, I'd have no problem if Congress had passed a general law establishing the jurisdiction of the federal courts in such cases generally, but what they did was tailor a specific law to a specific case. As I see it, that violates the Equal Protection clause as they attempted to give Terri Schiavo's parents access to courts that you would not have in a similar case unless Congress deigned to pass legislation to give it to you.

As to your proposal that Congress pass a law making life the presumption in these types of cases - that is actually the law in Florida, and the one that was applied to this case.

I have a more detailed post on this here:

http://armchairgenius.blogspot.com/2005/03/presumption-of-life.html

Bill -- Your position seems contradictory. On the one hand, you castigate Congress for getting involved in Schiavo case. On the other, you want it to write a law that would specifically address cases similar to...the Schiavo case. Well, in any case, if Congress has no role in the effective execution of a citizen whose crime is ill health--then, I guess I don't know what it should be involved in. Congress didn't decide the case; it merely ensured that Schiavo was subject to Federal habeas corpus, the same right someone sentenced to die for an actual crime receives. Why shouldn't Schiavo get the same treatment? She is, after all, being put ... to death and there is no written record as you note that she would have desired such.

I have a nephew in a condition not terribly different than Terri Shiavo. He was born profoundly retarded. No one expected him to live to be five, no one expected him to reach 12, no one thought he would make it through his teens. He's now 26. He wears diapers, eats only baby food and cannot communicate in any way. It takes three people to get him into a bathtub to bathe him. No one in my family would remotely consider starving him to death. How is it possible to find starving this woman to death remotely humane?

Bill,

The Equal Protection Clause does not apply to the Federal government. It applies to the states.

If the Federal government were to discriminate by classifying individuals in a discriminatory manner it would come under the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

But, this is a private bill/law. There is no discriminatory classification of individuals in this law; it is only applicable to parents of Terry Schiavo.

Congress grants private bills all the time. Granted, these are often for financial and immigration/citizenship concerns. But, there is no discriminatoty classification that occurs when Congress chooses to grant an individual citizenship or grant an individual compensation for claims against the government. Likewise, there is no classification in this private law.

Bill:

I disagree that Congress has no role here.

Ever since incorporation, the due process clause has applied to the states, and the question here is whether Terri has received due process.

I won't pretend to know what Terri's desires would be if she was able to tell us. What bothers me is this:

The husband has so many red flags of conflict of interest flying that I can't believe a judge could, in good conscience, base a finding that Terri would not want to live under these circumstances on his testimony alone.

For example: [1] If she dies while still married to him, he will inherit whatever monies remain from the settlements paid as a result of the injuries which led to her condition - hence, it is in his interest for her to die sooner rather than later; [2] he could've divorced Terri years ago if he'd been so inclined - all he'd have to establish is that Terri's been incapacitated for more than three years at the time he filed his Petition - so he's staying married to her by choice; [3] If he had divorced her, though, he'd have been removed as guardian the moment the Petition for Dissolution was filed and he'd certainly lose any claim to any monies remaining after Terri died - so, again, it's in his interests for him to become a widower, not divorced; [4] It's hard to believe his "choice" has anything to do with love and devotion, given he's taken up with another woman, with whom he has two children - alterior, selfish motives for remaining married are strongly suggested; [5] there's every reason to believe his new "family" unit would welcome Terri's death as it would free him to marry (or whatever).

Under such circumstances, testimony by Michael is extraordinarily self-serving - how it could be held to reach the higher proof standard of "clear and convincing evidence" is beyond me.

A basic rule of fiduciaries is that they must avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Given how compromised Michael is, I submit that any court that would allow him to remain in a fiduciary role vis a vis Terri is de facto depriving her of due process because the person who is supposed to be her advocate in that court is incapable of discharging those duties due to his own conflicts of interest.

Bill:

Circumstances like Terri Schiavo's are, and probably always will be, extremely rare. They are especially rare when they happen to a person in previous good health. While living-wills should be strongly considered by those advanced age or major disease, it will always remain difficult for the Quinlan-Cruzon-Schiavo age-set to execute an informed and carefully considered living-will.

Most hospitals are already quite proactive in getting people to *consider* living-will issues. In many ways this practice is similar to your suggestion that everyone over age 18 execute a living-will (with or without periodic updates.) At it’s worst, it’s mostly effective in ensuring that “something gets signed.” It’s debatable how well anyone can predict what future choices they might make, based on the reference point of their current life.

People often say “I’d rather be dead than . . “ with any number of disabilities that are much less severe than Terri Shiavo’s. Many who find themselves in those situations come to the conclusion that they’d rather not be dead. As Viktor Frankl noted in “Man’s Search for Meaning” (highly recommended to those who have never read it) life can have meaning even after everything--short of life itself--has been stripped from a person.

Generalized solutions will always be a poor fix for such a complex problem. The adage "hard cases make bad law" has been noted by many, and is applicable to efforts to prevent future disasters. I’m not sure that insisting people make decisions, about conditions they can only vaguely comprehend, is the answer. I’m not sure that this problem will even have a perfect solution.

You are absolutely wrong about whether Congress can do this "under the constitution". Congress has been passing perfectly constitutional private bills by the hundreds and thousands for over 200 years. This is no different under the constitution than those.The only argument that can be accurately made is to state an opinon whether this is right or wrong. I fall on the side of those who say that Judicial Murder should be turned back. The surest way is to convict Terri Schiavo of murder. The entire left will immediately argue that she should be set free.

There's something very troubling about all of this. First, I recognize that those supporting Terri Schaivo, her mother and father, are by far in the minority.

Then, as I read the thread of this discussion I realized that I could some day be in a position like Terri. Having read the commentary I pray that when I need help most in life that I don't have friends or guardians like some of you. The last thing I would need at such a time is "friends," "comforters," and "legal scholars" discussing my life with a kind of clinical detachment that is almost beyond belief.

Your scholarly excellence and compassion shine right through your writing.

Thanks, this has all been very enlightening for me.

> The surest way is to convict Terri Schiavo of murder. The entire left will immediately argue that she should be set free.

Or have Congress declare her an honorary spotted owl.

"I would like to see Congress pass, and the President sign, a law that says if any person who has no living will comes to be in a position where a living will would be helpful, any decision in a squabble or dispute over her care must err on the side of maintaining life, and hearsay evidence such as that offered by Michael Schiavo would not be admissable."

I thought you said congress had no constitutional right to make a law. I don't know if they did they right thing but certainly they had the right to do it.

I totally agree with the 1st part of your statement that we do not know the whole story. But I have been in a similar situation and know the emotional turmoil of watching someone just exist in a bed for years and years. We watched our 100 year old Grandmother exist for almost 10 years in a bed. Although she was not in a coma - she had no quality of life and would have hated the position she found herself in. Fortunately for us, she had a living will and so we did not have to make any horrible decision when she simply quit eating and starved herself. We loved her very much and rejoiced when she finally was able to go home to her God. I wish peace for Terry and her entire family.

Crux of the issue . . .

Government has no business in the marriage business . . . were that true . . .

Michael Schiavo would have no legal standing.

Terri would not be forced to suffer starvation via fiat from governmental courts, while politicians played for favor trying to befriend angry constituents.

Terri would be fed and cared for by her parents; Michael would have to find the life of his own he has already carved out with another woman and children, and the rest of us would be spared this tragic soap opera.

Personally, I am very much interested in the medical files that indicate trauma to Terri, and, in the interest of wondering why Michael Schiavo persists in his idiotic quest to see his ex-wife die, I would welcome a full medical inquest.

Michael Schiavo has proven his lack of love and devotion for Terri. His persistence in carrying out her supposed desires in this matter ring hollow.

The state wishes to have it both ways; anti-life forces just keep kevorkianing matters, and as the world continues to bastardize itself against the living, those who value life are devalued ever more.

I am simply appalled at the increasing idiocy of the human race over against itself.

Amazing. Kill a woman for no reason, and create a million excuses.

Bullhockey.

Crux of the issue . . .

Government has no business in the marriage business . . . were that true . . .

Michael Schiavo would have no legal standing.

Terri would not be forced to suffer starvation via fiat from governmental courts, while politicians played for favor trying to befriend angry constituents.

Terri would be fed and cared for by her parents; Michael would have to find the life of his own he has already carved out with another woman and children, and the rest of us would be spared this tragic soap opera.

Personally, I am very much interested in the medical files that indicate trauma to Terri, and, in the interest of wondering why Michael Schiavo persists in his idiotic quest to see his ex-wife die, I would welcome a full medical inquest.

Michael Schiavo has proven his lack of love and devotion for Terri. His persistence in carrying out her supposed desires in this matter ring hollow.

The state wishes to have it both ways; anti-life forces just keep kevorkianing matters, and as the world continues to bastardize itself against the living, those who value life are devalued ever more.

I am simply appalled at the increasing idiocy of the human race over against itself.

Amazing. Kill a woman for no reason, and create a million excuses.

Bullhockey.

How come you are confident that if this unfortunate woman's living will was found in written form, her parents and associated religious types would not try to keep her alive anyhow?

How can the judge consider the word of a husband who abondoned his wife years ago and broke his vow of marriage with adultery accept the husband's word as valid?

Seems to me the judge is in violation of the law by not allowing the wife legal representation in a case where the husband can no longer be seen as a legit guardian since he had abandoned his wife years ago and continues to this day as an adulterer and not her husband. Seems to me, the husband gave up his rights as guardian of his wife when he committed adultery.

From my personal experience with the 'right to die in dignity' idea and doctors is that the moment you enter a hospital with a someone who has a terminal disease and tell the doctor the terminal patient's wishes for dying in dignity, the doctor will immediately give the terminal patient the advise that there is no hope for cure, that misery and suffering is inevitable and that there is a feel good drug available to ease the terminal patients life into death.

In other words, if you tell the doctor you have already given up on life they are all to willing to accomodate you with a feel good drug death.

As a mother of a severely disabled daughter, I felt I had to write in regards to Terri Schiavo.
My daughter is a quador-spastic CP, and had a feeding tube put in place 1.5 years ago. This was not done as a heroic act, but as to add comfort and safety to her frail life. Life support is a ventilator and is very different from the nutritional tubes. You can go anywhere and everywhere with a feeding tube. People who can walk and talk have them. It has a very real purpose in their lives; to aid nutrition and assurance of the person safety in eating.
There is really no difference in a g-tube or Insulin. Or a Pacemaker. Or an Artificial Limb.
Providing liquids food, even artificially is part of the normal treatment. There is a difference between allowing nature to take its course and actively assisting death.
Deliberate removal of this G-tube, means to produce a premature death. Indeed this is called euthanasia, that is, unjust killing.
Michael Schiavo says back 15-20 years ago, He and Terri had discussion over this issue at hand. I have 4 other children, ranging from 24- 19years. Not one of them /or their friends have ever talked about the right to die. Let’s hope and pray that the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta will realize that Terri is a valued person in this world.

The following comment statements are untrue, regardless of where one stands on the debate:

"She can communicate in her own way."

"If Mr. Schiavo has made ANY effort to see his wife revived (like he said he would during the lawsuit that brought him $750,000 for his wife's lifelong care), or if he had said in court that his wife didn't want to live like that"

" The point is that there is some doubt here, or the parents wouldn't be pushing this court case."

"That's just flat-out wrong. All she needs is food and water. She was being spoonfed until her husband ordered the tube instead. "

"The courts in Florida ruled that he was properly exercising his right to uphold her orally-stated living will."

"Terri Schiavo has only been declared to be in a PVS for 7 years. The was the first step her husband took in order the get her off nutrition. "

"The Florida State courts have failed her by not having her husband have all of the tests run (only one test has been done). "

"I've seen the video clips of Terri online. She appears to smile. She appears to feel emotions."

"How many doctors examined Terry? The court documents indicate the origianl decision was based on an examination by a single physician."

and ANY statement about Michael Schiavo's financial gain in Terri Schiavo's death is flat out wrong.

As for those who call it "killing" or "murder"....if it is (and I accept that it might be), then people are "killed" or "murdered" every single day. By emoting over Terri Schiavo, you devalue everyone else who dies that way, if that's what you care about.

The Florida statutes on end of life care are considered a model and are often used by other states. Governor Jeb Bush and many of the Florida senators and representatives enacted the change in legislation that specifically added "removal of artificial nutrition" as an option.

Regardless of where you stand on the matter, why not be sure you know what you're talking about?

Terri Schiavo FAQ for the Uncommitted

1. Some say it is Arrogance for me to say Terry would not want to live like this. I think that is hogwash. Because I am healthy right now, I have no idea or right to judge? If Terry had a living will she would have made it before this happened to her, not after. So NO, you are the ones being arrogant. How can you assume to represent someone from a brain damaged perspective?

2. It falls to her family/husband to make those decisions for her now. You can demonize ther husband all day. I do note that no one heard of all these money/murder angles on the husband until recently. Even so, how long has the husband been told numerous doctors that his wife is brain dead, or in a PVS?

3. Susan is right about Doctors and hodspitals. But that means the family has it responsibility here. They have gone the distance for her, both sides in my opinion. If the husband is doing this for a payoff, it is on his soul. But I dont see anyone hanging this long, through all that slander, for not that much money. It cant be much. and his life has been dominated by this whole episode.

I think if it was just money he would have taken the buy-off's. No, looks to me like he is hangin tough because he truely believes that Terry would not have wanted this. Of course all those opposed to letting her go must demonize and drag him through the mud else their cause falls apart.

While it seems that Bill now realizes legislation requiring everyone over the age of 18 to have a living will is not the way to go, I still agree with his point that legislation requiring doctors to err on the side of life in the absence of a written living will is a very good idea.
Tom C's idea was a great one.
As for Terry Schiavo's situation right now,as unfortunate (and I think wrong) as it is, the judge HAS agreed to let her die. I very much agree with SJKEVIN's comment that if they are going to let her die, and the judge's order has to be followed, can't we at least find a more humane to do it?
Would I want to go on living indefinately in that state? No. But would being "allowed to die" that way be any better? Absolutely not.
I will be having a living will drafted soon and it will be very specific!

Doctors have stated that due to the part of her brain that is gone she will not feel the starvation pains.

I also agree with Susan.
If a non-custodial parent does not pay child support, contact/visit the child, etc. for a given amount of time, the law calls that abandonment and that parent's rights can be terminated by a judge.
Michael Schiavo has clearly abandoned his roll as Terry's husband. A mistress and two children with her prove that.

Noteworthy too is the fact that Terri Schiavo swallows her own saliva and has been fed via baby bottle in the past (before her husband and the court forbade it). What strikes me about it is that without that feeding tube and the accompanying order by the court not to provide any other kind of sustenance if the feeding tube isn't in place, there's no way to kill Terri legally. Given everything else Michael Schiavo has done to smirch his own reputation, I'm not surprised that he insisted on the feeding tube - but he oughtn't to be surprised that I doubt the purity of his motives "when I don't even know him" (from a snippet of a TV interview with him I saw recently). How much do I have to know?

He could be the most loving, devoted husband in the world, so transformed by sacramental love for his unfortunate wife that he just knew God intended for him to move on and love again (and that's why the girlfriend and children), and his actions would still paint a very different picture. Heck, that may be the case: he may be a saint. But he acts like a stone sinner.

Man, I'm vacillating between anguish and anger today... She's going to die, and heaven help us, some will rejoice, believing that her wishes have been carried out. Possibly it would have been her wish to die under these circumstances. But since we don't know (the court's finding being based solely on her reported casual comments heard by four people including her husband, whom she'd been talking to friends about divorcing shortly before her collapse, and who had started doing weird things like checking her car's odo reading and so forth - paging Scott Peterson, Scott? - and her husband's brother), why on earth should *anyone* rejoice? The best emotion I can imagine under the circumstances is relief that at any rate her suffering and her family's will be ended. Even that relief ought to be tinged with grief for the ending of a life, if we're the society I hope we are.

"We have only the word of her husband who assures us that his wife once said she wouldn't want to be kept alive this way, and we have her parents, who love their daughter and desire only to care for her.

. . .

If Terri Schiavo wanted to be allowed to die in this situation, she should be. But we don't know, and the word of her husband, absent a written document and witnesses, simply isn't enough to go on."

Um, no, this is simply wrong, wrong, wrong. You could have done at least a minimum of research before making such an obviously incorrect claim.

In fact Judge Greer discounted both Michael Schiavo's testimony and the parents, instead relying on Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law's statements about a conversation they had with Terri about a relative who was being kept alive on a machine.

Too much of this case is simply bloggers and others talking about crap without being willing to spend a few minutes on the very basics of the case.

Frankly, I find all this reliance on living wills to provide the perfect resolutions to situations regarding the maintenance of life in incapacitated people as much of a knee-jerk reaction as any of the other resolutions proposed or enacted. I do not want a living will for the simple reason that there is no way that such a document can address all the complexities of one of the few things that can accurately be described as a life-and-death decision. If I say, “If I’m brain dead, let me go,” I am hoping for my caregivers and my survivors to be presented with a clear cut scenario, one in which everyone agrees I am brain dead rather than severely impaired. Isn’t that exactly the point of contention between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo? If I say, “If there’s no hope, don’t prolong my life by artificial means,” I am burdening my survivors with determining what probability and degree of recovery constitutes hope and what the meaning of “artificial means” might be. Again, isn’t this also part of what the argument over Terri Schiavo’s fate is about? Call me naive, but I'd rather my family make a decision that takes into account all the complexities of a situation I cannot presuppose.

Unlike many of the people commenting on this case, I have followed the Schindler-Schiavo case for several years and have read the available legal documents. Determining whether Terri Schiavo would have wished to continue to live in a persistent vegetative state, the morality of the right to die, and Michael Schiavo’s fitness as legal guardian are really only secondary issues. The real issue, although not nearly as attention-grabbing, is the inability of Florida’s (and now, apparently, the United States’) legal system to effectively address a contested finding of fact once an initial ruling is made. The appeals courts’ presumption of correctness in the findings of the original case mandates that any reviewing judge approach the findings of the original court with prejudice, placing a higher burden of proof on the contesting party.

While there are plenty of very good reasons for this presumption of correctness in most cases, in the Schiavo case this principle leads to the haunting possibility of the uncorrectable mistake. What if the initial finding of Terri’s condition to be a persistent vegetative state was incorrect? Every judge that has reexamined the case so far has been legally required to assume that finding is correct unless confronted with overwhelming evidence that it was not. That means that if five medical specialists testify that Terri is not in a PVS and five testify that she is, the five who testify that she is carry the argument. If there is equal proof on both sides, the status quo prevails. All well and good, unless the initial findings were wrong, a possibility that is not all that incredible to anyone who follows the workings of our legal system.

To be heard—not to prevail but just to be heard—the Schindlers must convince a reviewing judge that they will probably win the case. Whether they were right of wrong to intervene, the relief Congress attempted to provide to the Schindlers was, in this sense, not so much an expression of intent to deprive the Florida legal system of its sovereignty as it was to secure a de novo hearing for the Schindlers’ contentions. A de novo hearing would remove the legal hurdle in the way of getting the Schindlers’ arguments heard in a court of law and remove the thumb from the scales when the presiding judge considered the arguments of both sides. Thus far the federal rulings have cited the prejudice in favor of the previous courts in their denials to hear the case, which is in direct contradiction of the concept of a de novo hearing and denying the intent of Congress's intervention.

While the consensus seems to be that the moral of this sad, sad story is to make sure you have a living will, I believe the real import of this awful situation is to highlight a weakness in our legal system in dealing with cases of this kind. I do not presume to know what Terri Schiavo's wishes are or would be, and I have no idea whether her parents or her husband are correct about her condition. But given the circumstances I've discussed above, I don't feel comfortable in accepting that the courts have really discovered her wishes or determined her condition either.

Brian Carnell,
I'm glad you clarified about the brother and sister-in-law's testimony but if you read the first paragraph of Bill's post you will see that he admits this is a multi-layered case which he does not even claim to know the details.
He was simply writing about potential solutions in FUTURE cases like this one and you are correct in that commenters have very much gotten into details of the Schiavo case;whether accurate or not.
Yes, people should read the case itself.

Two things, Bill, that a lot of people continue to get wrong about this....

First, there was more to the evidence than just Michael Schiavo's hearsay recollection of one conversation. Both his brother and his wife offered testimony to her wishes regarding different conversations. Michael's sister-in-law would seem to me to offer the most reliable testimony as she is not a blood relative of Michael and it is doubtful you could come up with a credible scenario in which she would have motivation to lie about such a thing.

Second, dying from starvation and dehydration in such a condition is not "agony" as many practicing the height of rhetoric continue to assert. It is medical opinion that it is the most graceful way for a patient in Terry's condition to pass. It may sound bad, but in reality it isn't the horror it is made out to be. Nevermind the fact that in her condition it is extremely unlikely that she would be aware of the process anyhow.

The only legitimate argument against Bill Hobbs proposed bill is that this should be done by the individual states, not the federal level.

I would be more the willing to work with people to draft and promote such a bill in Washington State.

Bill, living wills are a BAD idea being propagated by the death industry. I wrote a post about this: The Cruelest Hoax: Signing Your Own Death Warrant.

what's shocking is not what people are fighting over, but what they are ignoring.

i'm even more suprised that regardless of what the judgement was on the feeding tube..i thought the basis of that judgement was that it would have been executing her wishes in life.

in life, terri was close to her family. why were they physically barred from her death bed?

in life, terri was a catholic, why was she denied her religious freedoms to the burial rites of a catholic (i am not christian by the way, but simply someone who advocates freedom of religion, not freedom from religion).

do you really think it was her wishes to have her burial site hidden from her family? what lengths do we go to on behalf of families to find the bodies of murder victims? great lengths. because we know this is important to families. so why are we denying the schiavos that right...nee. why are our courts working with schiavo to hide the body.

so feeding tube issues aside...isn't it peculiar how nobody is noticing that the basic human rights of terri are being ignored in her death?

michael schiavo was her huband, not her owner. and though the position of husband gave him the right to make the determination to remove her feeding tube in florida. it does not give him ownership of her dead body or the rights to impede on her religious and personal freedoms that she would expect in life.

if we do not open our eyes now to this very real problem.
we will be sorry.