A Brief Final Word On Terri Schiavo

With the autopsy results out and with triumphant squeals emanating from some quarters, I'd like to review briefly my stand on the Schiavo matter.  To me it basically came down to a question of the court taking the hearsay word of her husband against the word of the parents, in the absence of any hard documentation as to her wishes.  Here are some snippets of posts I wrote earlier, in reverse chronological order.

On Terri Schiavo, In Conclusion

I was driving to my office from the operating room just now, listening to Fox News on satellite radio, and they interviewed Ralph Nader.  I never would have thought it possible, but Mr. Nader and I have exactly the same position and reasoning as regards this case.

He believes that the court erred in continuing to allow Mr. Schiavo to serve as guardian when he had possible ulterior motives and secondary gain, and that he should have been replaced as guardian by her parents.  He further stated that the court was wrong to allow belated hearsay as to the patient's wishes when there was disagreement among the family members and no written living will available.

I concur. This latter point has been my biggest bone of contention with the legal process in this case.

The Schiavo Watch

This puts the Court, Judge Greer in this case, in an almost divine position, determining life and death for the patient involved.  I'll say it again.  I think the Florida Court originally erred when, in the absence of a written declaration of end-of-life decisions and with members of the family taking opposing positions, it took it upon itself to 'play God'.

On Terri Schiavo, Once More

Additional testing is unlikely to break any new ground

Absent an advance directive it still puts the court in the position of deciding the patient's fate based on hearsay, in concert with one side but in opposition to the other.

On Terri Schiavo

In medicine, in the absence of an advance directive, I was not under the impression that the word of a guardian as to the patients desires for death could be taken.  A guardian or family member with power of attorney is consulted in situations where the patient is incompetent to answer for themselves in instituting DNR (do not resuscitate) orders.  This is not a case of refusing resuscitation in the case of arrest, but a situation where the sole source of nourishment is being removed to deprive the patient of sustenance...

Although I can not fathom, based on the facts in the case, the ruling of the Florida courts in this case, I cannot see any reason for the intervention of Congress in the matter.  It sets a bad precedent, and it seems to me, if they felt they absolutely must make a statement, a better option would have been a resolution passed as a "sense of the body", rather than a law changing jurisdiction in a specific case.  When will the next individual petition Congress for a law in support of their specific circumstance?

Here's a link to my comment to this post at The Moderate Voice.  Picking apart Sen. Frist because he happens to be a physician who didn't examine Ms. Schiavo based on what people perceive him to have said is carrying things a bit far.

Wizbang's Kevin Aylward has a similar view of the situation.

UPDATE: It's worth noting Michelle Malkin's effort to read the entire report on the autopsy, and the findings within that have been misrepresented by the not fully medically literate press.

Comments

[Zsa zsa]

No doubt about it!...The court erred! I never thought I would agree with Ralph Nader either, but this time I am with him all the way! My sister has been in a similar condition for quite a while. Our family would never think of dehydrating her to death! To take someones life just because they have brain damage is so wrong! Especially if they did not leave a living will...