I recommend everyone interested in the case go to http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html, which has a detailed summary of the case, a discussion of some of the legal questions involved, and links to many of the original court documents (I found that examining these was enlightening, and legalese is actually quite readable). Here are some excerpts from the FAQ:
>> Why did Terri's husband get to make the decision about whether she
should live or die?
> Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
> As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
> Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
> The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
>> Is Michael really just looking for money?
> I have no way to know. I know what the Schindlers say to reporters, but then I know that the Second District's first decision in the case used these words to describe Michael's care for Terri:
>> Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband.
Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends
and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for
her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He
has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby
hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum
treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of
Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order
to assure that she receives the proper treatment.
> Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri's parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri's wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri's behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.
The site also has a brief discussion of the medical evidence considered in the trials. Again, it is well worth reading.
-- John S Costello joxn.costello at gmail.com "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to." -- J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs