Schiavo Thread Part Deux

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
Che thinks it's evil right-wingers,

Actually I'm just saying that because I'm tired of the smear campaign against Schaivo. To be honestly truthful, I think it is a case of deeply held convictions on both sides as to what represents the best way to uphold human dignity, and that these views are diametrically and irreconcilable.

But saying that isn't nearly as much fun as impuning the morality of Ned and Drake.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle


Ned, are you trying to break new legal ground here? Is it customary to have counsel appointed? If not, you are asking for a radical departure, a tough sell.

I thought the due process claim had been thoroughly reviewed already multiple times?

I'm not sure it has been reviewed, frankly. This case seems to be a case of first impression to the courts on the possible miscarriage of justice by a proceeding where the issue of consent of the incapacitated person is an issue at trial, and there is no lawyer representing the person who will be condemned as a result of the proceedings. Alan Duraswitch of Harvard said that most states require a writing by the victim, or a consensus of the family, in order to terminate life. Florida is almost unique in its law that the testimony of witnesses alone can be sufficient. The problem with this is perjury, of course. Perjury happens where the testifier has adverse interests, as clearly did Michael here.

Deraswitch declared that was opposed to the Florida law. He did not opinine, though, on the question of constitutionality.

What I say here is driven by the basic fairness concerns expressed by the Supreme Court in the original "right to counsel" cases. Where one's life is at stake, adequate representation is mandatory.

I am appalled that this woman faces death on testimony of adverse withnesses alone when she was not represented by counsel at trial.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No, but the way the mother said it made it seem as if it were a contemporary discussion and not after the fact.

So...neither side has a clue when the discussion happened? Does she claim a date?

[Capt Dizle]

Nice post John. I'd refer you to my posts in the last, locked thread, explaining my belief that this is a run-up to a battle to repeal Roe v. Wade.

Your observations are more elegant but my predictions will prove out, I fear.

[Ned]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Two other people corraborated his testimony. The mother's testinmony is about an incident that took place three years before the disucssions Terri had with husband and in-laws.

According to Terri's mother, when hearing of the Karen Ann Quinlan, Terri said that she disagreed with taking people off of artificial life support. That case occured from 1975 to 1976, which would be when that discussion would have had to have occured, according to the words Terri's mother used. That would be when she was 13, as oppssed to a 24 year-old woman who witnessed what her husband's family went through. Only a fool would think that an adult woman would necessarily have the same views that she had as a child.

I would be interested in hearing the precise testimony of any witness that was not Michael or his brother. What precisely did this mutual friend say?

[chequita guevara]

Read the article, Ned.

[GePap]

Wait- the husband is not to be believed, but the mother is?

She had this event in 1990-by all dates given the Quinlan case was relevant between 1976 and 1986. This might have been before her marriage, who knows? The point is, what the mother says is not even proof against what the husband said- since the point would be to find out what she would have done in HER case, not some third person- people are always hypocrites between what they think should happen to others and to them.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Capt Dizle
Ned,

I almost always share your POV and will always respect your position but I think you are coloring outside the lines on this one. I think you are just plainly on the side of the line with George, Jeb, and the religious right on this issue. I think you feel so strongly on this issue you would cast aside all logic and seek any winning argument. Heck, I respect that as well, because I think you are sincere in your beliefs.

If I have read you wrong on this, or if I have offended you, I apologize.

I think he wants the patient to have her own attourney appointed so that the patient is represented, not just the parents and the husband.

You'd have to go a little further than that in cases like this though. You'd have to appoint a third party as guardian and then have that third party try to get to the bottom of what the patient really wanted and then that third party could instruct counsel. It is clear that the patient can't.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by TCO
So...neither side has a clue when the discussion happened? Does she claim a date?

No date is claimed in the article. I'm infering fromthe words used, so it's more than likely I'm talking out my ass. But until JohnT had to go and ruin my fun with an acutally serious post, that's pretty much what I was openly and admittedly doing.

[JohnT]

Didn't mean to be such a killjoy.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


GePap, no doubt there was sufficient evidence produced at trial to condemn Terri to death. But Terri had no attorney to test that evidence and to introduce contrary witnesses. Is that fair?

Why would the lawyer introduce ANYONE!!

A lawyer is there to represent the interests of their client. A lawyer can only know the interests of their client if they, well communicate with a client. You are acting as if a lawyer appointed for Terry would have had to assume that her wish was to live, which goes against the very notion of representation and doing what is best for Terry, since Terry could have wanted to die and then her counsel would be acting against her wishes! That would be bad counsel.

This is why this is fundamentally different from a criminal case- in a criminal case its the State making accusations, and it has a very tought standard of proof to meet. This was a civil case given the job of examining what Terry's whishes would have been- any lawyer appointed to her that decided to argue that her wish was to live would not be acting on her behalf, since she can;t communicate her wish, but would really be working for someone else-hence, it would not be Terry's lawyer.

[TCO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


No date is claimed in the article. I'm infering fromthe words used, so it's more than likely I'm talking out my ass. But until JohnT had to go and ruin my fun with an acutally serious post, that's pretty much what I was openly and admittedly doing.

I think so many other points are more relavant and supportive of your overall argument. I would stick to those rather than these weak reeds.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You'd have to go a little further than that in cases like this though. You'd have to appoint a third party as guardian and then have that third party try to get to the bottom of what the patient really wanted and then that third party could instruct counsel.

But, that's what Mr Schiavo asked the judge to do. What Ned is arguing is that the judge should have foisted that determinaton of what Mrs. Schiavo wanted onto yet another person, and then have that person represent her . . . to what end? Why would a lawyer be more competent to make that decision than a judge?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by TCO
I think so many other points are more relavant and supportive of your overall argument. I would stick to those rather than these weak reeds.

I have no overall argument. I think the religious right should stick their noses back out of this and leave it to the courts and the family. That's what I'm offended by, that all these strangers think they have a right to interfere with someone private family business, and pretty much primarily based on blatent untruths. But that's what they do. They try and tell people how to live their lives.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


But, that's what Mr Schiavo asked the judge to do. What Ned is arguing is that the judge should have foisted that determinaton of what Mrs. Schiavo wanted onto yet another person, and then have that person represent her . . . to what end? Why would a lawyer be more competent to make that decision than a judge?

A guardian, not the lawyer.