Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Facts and Fiction
There's no winners in the Terri Sciavo case. But thanks to Congress we have to add the Rule of Law to the list of losers.
Anyway...
In reading the letters to the New York Times on the subject, 201k is struck by the amount of bad information that people are working with. What has the media been doing that people are so misinformed?
All the information on the case is easily available. This gentleman has a website that is a great resource should the national press be overcome with the sudden urge to tell Americans something resembling the facts. Not that there's much profit in that, mind you.
Several Times letter writers believe that Michael Schiavo made the decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. He specifically did not. Recognizing that he could not make that decision himself he followed Florida law and petitioned the court to act as a surrogate guardian for the purpose of making the decision, which it did, after hearing testimony from many people.
Letter writers also believe that it's only Michael Schiavo's word that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live in her current state. Also false. The court heard direct testimony from others who credibly described conversations with Terri on the subject. They were found credible both because they described conversations with reference to specific incidents--for instance, surrounding the illness and death of a grandparent--and because their testimony included "non-favorable" remarks which the witnesses made no attempt to hide.
On the other hand the court found the testimony offered to the contrary--that is, that Terri had expressed her wishes not to die in such a circumstance--to be problematic. There were "time frame" issues, changes in degress of certainty and details recalled, and worst of all, what the court found to be questionable differences between testimony offered in earlier depositions and at trial.
We've also seen a great number of people who charge that Michael Schiavo "never took care" of Terri, or worse, that he abused her in some way. It might interest these people to look at the time line of events. Terri collapsed in February, 1990. For four years, until March, 1994, her husband spared no effort--and this is confirmed by the testimony of doctors--to give her "rehabilitation" treatment. It wasn't until four years after that--eight years after she'd collapsed--that he became convinced, based on the diagnosis of doctors that her brain had deteriorated beyond hope, that she was in "a persistent vegetative state" and asked the court to determine whether she'd want to keep living. That was in May, 1998.
The issue of abuse was twice dismissed by the courts as "unfounded". At one point the court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem, who found that there was no reason to remove Michael Sciavo as guardian.
Terri's family most recently petitioned the court with the abuse allegation through the Florida Department of Children and Families, who for some reason agreed--only to have to stand before the court and declare that they'd investigated every charge and determined them to be "unfounded". Hmm, 201k wonders...who could have ordered a Florida government agency to allow itself to be used to file a petitition it then had to acknowledge had no merit?
A sad case. Happens every day in courts across the country. But only in this case did Congress throw the rule of law out the window.
Anyway...
In reading the letters to the New York Times on the subject, 201k is struck by the amount of bad information that people are working with. What has the media been doing that people are so misinformed?
All the information on the case is easily available. This gentleman has a website that is a great resource should the national press be overcome with the sudden urge to tell Americans something resembling the facts. Not that there's much profit in that, mind you.
Several Times letter writers believe that Michael Schiavo made the decision to remove Terri's feeding tube. He specifically did not. Recognizing that he could not make that decision himself he followed Florida law and petitioned the court to act as a surrogate guardian for the purpose of making the decision, which it did, after hearing testimony from many people.
Letter writers also believe that it's only Michael Schiavo's word that Terri Schiavo would not have wanted to live in her current state. Also false. The court heard direct testimony from others who credibly described conversations with Terri on the subject. They were found credible both because they described conversations with reference to specific incidents--for instance, surrounding the illness and death of a grandparent--and because their testimony included "non-favorable" remarks which the witnesses made no attempt to hide.
On the other hand the court found the testimony offered to the contrary--that is, that Terri had expressed her wishes not to die in such a circumstance--to be problematic. There were "time frame" issues, changes in degress of certainty and details recalled, and worst of all, what the court found to be questionable differences between testimony offered in earlier depositions and at trial.
We've also seen a great number of people who charge that Michael Schiavo "never took care" of Terri, or worse, that he abused her in some way. It might interest these people to look at the time line of events. Terri collapsed in February, 1990. For four years, until March, 1994, her husband spared no effort--and this is confirmed by the testimony of doctors--to give her "rehabilitation" treatment. It wasn't until four years after that--eight years after she'd collapsed--that he became convinced, based on the diagnosis of doctors that her brain had deteriorated beyond hope, that she was in "a persistent vegetative state" and asked the court to determine whether she'd want to keep living. That was in May, 1998.
The issue of abuse was twice dismissed by the courts as "unfounded". At one point the court appointed a Guardian Ad Litem, who found that there was no reason to remove Michael Sciavo as guardian.
Terri's family most recently petitioned the court with the abuse allegation through the Florida Department of Children and Families, who for some reason agreed--only to have to stand before the court and declare that they'd investigated every charge and determined them to be "unfounded". Hmm, 201k wonders...who could have ordered a Florida government agency to allow itself to be used to file a petitition it then had to acknowledge had no merit?
A sad case. Happens every day in courts across the country. But only in this case did Congress throw the rule of law out the window.
