The fate of Ms. Schiavo

As Ms. Schiavo left no will, I think the issue boils down not to who has the legal right to make a decision surrounding the status of her life, but who has the moral right. The issue boils down to a question of motives with the parents of Ms. Schiavo, Bob and Mary Schindler pitted against the husband of Ms. Schiavo, Mr. Michael Schiavo.The parent's motive is relatively simple: They want their daughter to live, and she would if the feeding tube, not exactly considered an extraordinary method of sustaining life, were reinserted. Dr. William Cheshire of the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville states that Ms. Schiavo's face brightens and that she smiles in response to the voices of familiar people like her parents, and because of this and other responses that demonstrate what Dr.Cheshire refers to as a 'minimally conscious state,' the parents have not abandoned hope. Hope can be naively placed but what is at question is individuals motives and not the realistic nature of their desires. Their motive, if rightly identified seems noble, and even those in support of Mr. Schiavo do not question the sincerity of Mr. and Mrs. Schindler's desire to see their daughter live. Combined with their hope, is the case of Ms. Kate Adamson who has launched a campaign to save Ms. Schiavo. What makes Ms. Adamson special is that when she was younger she suffered a catastrophic brain stem stroke and was dependant on a feeding tube fore nourishment. Eventually she had her feeding tube removed. She knows what it is like to be starved. Ms. Adamson's story has given
hope to those close to Ms. Schiavo, and has recently given rise among the common public to the demand that Ms. Schiavo be given a chance to live.Mr. Schiavo wants the feeding tube of his wife removed. As food is necessary for life, and as the feeding tube facilitates this, its removal will result in her death. His motives are more difficult to discern. Some suggest that he beat or attempted to strangle his wife, which resulted in her state, and that he fears that a fully conscious Ms. Schiavo will confirm such accusations. While the bone scan taken in 1991 is not inconsistent with that which would result from a severe beating, others feel that it is as consistent with bulimia, a fall, and the CPR given by paramedics. That there is uncertainty is worthy to note. Working in Ms. Schiavo's favor is that it seems unlikely that he would cause her to collapse, and then initiate a lawsuit against someone else for her collapse, thereby opening the case up to a serious and detailed inquiry.Mr. Schiavo won this malpractice suit and recovered approximately $ 700 000 for the care of Ms. Schiavo and another $ 300 000 for himself. A relatively unreported detail in this well documented story is that Mr. Schiavo has romantically engaged himself to another woman who has conceived by him two children. If Mr. Schiavo were to divorce Ms. Schiavo, then upon her death the money would go to her parents and not to him. It is important to remember that while Ms. Adamson's husband was campaigning to preserve his wife's life, Mr. Schiavo has been unfaithful and produced two children by his 'fianc' all the while identifying himself as Ms. Schiavo's 'loving' and 'grieving' husband, remaining married to her so as to cash in on a nice inheritance, and insisting on the feeding tube's removal so as to speed up that process. I realize that such an analysis calls into question the goodness of his character, but it seems that the conclusions drawn from these speculations are unavoidable and the examination of his actions speak louder than any analysis. Other questions persist and add weight to the case against Mr. Schiavo's legitimacy in determining the future of someone else's daughter. After the malpractice award, why, in mid-1993, did he have a 'Do not resuscitate' placed on her medical chart? She was only 30 years old at this point. Why in June of 1993 did he refuse to allow treatment for an ear infection that had developed? Hint: He later said under oath that he expected the infection to progress to a fatal sepsis that would result in death. Why in 1998, eight years after Ms. Schiavo had gone into cardiac arrest, and only after the hiring of right-to-die lawyer Mr. George Felos, did Mr. Schiavo remember that Ms. Schiavo had made some vague comments about not wanting to be sustained on anything artificial? Why, on October 18, 2003 would Mr. Schiavo's lawyers not even allow Msgr. Malanowski to receive a miniscule peace of communion onto her tongue? Finally why has Mr. Schiavo spent a great bulk of the malpractice award on his lawyer Mr. Felos in an effort to end Ms. Schiavo's life rather than spend it on therapy or rehabilitation programs that may improve her quality of life?It would seem that Ms. Schiavo's parents have more of a moral right to determine their daughter's fate, than does her husband. But while judges deny this possibility, hope is dying, and so is Ms. Schiavo.kjn

Members who have responded,
A careful reading of my original post will show that I am not passing judgement on the removal of the feeding tube, or the legitimacy of it. I simly state that given the circumstances that surround the case, the right to decide for Ms. Schiavo should be left to the parents, since the left no written desire. I now respond to your specific comments.Nosyned...
The simple truth is that we have no written material documenting Ms. Schiavo's wishes. While both Mr. Schiavo and others have stated that she expressed her desire to be taken off life support if the situation ever arose, it remains curious that Mr. Schiavo would only first state this in 1998, eight years after she went into cardiac arrest, and directly after higher right-to-die lawyer George Felos.
It is quite common to have a feeding tube removed, though I still feel that Mr. Schiavo has forfeitted his right to make that decision since he has entered into a common law relationship with a woman who he calls his 'fiance.' Given that they also have two children I feel that Mr. Schiavo is no longer to be entrusted to make decisions for Ms. Schiavo. That he is not willing to divorce her is also curious with regards to his financial motives.Crashfrog...
The "absolutely disgusting slander" that you attach to those who accuse Mr. Schiavo of abuse, is quite irrelevant to my points. I am not agreeing with their claims, in fact I cite evidences that go against this notion.
As I have noted with Nosyned, I maintain that because Ms. Schiavo did not leave a written will, the question boils down to who has the right to make an end-of-life decision for her. Mr. Schiavo's statements concerning his wife's desires are quite meaningless, as is Ms. Schiavo's chance of recovery. The simple fact is someone has to make the decision for her. I feel the parents are in a better position than Mr. Schiavo to make that decision, and I feel that their is less suspicion surrounding their right to decide as opposed to Mr. Schiavo. Understand that to remove the tube is not wrong (it happens quite often) but the manner in which this decision has been made is faulty. The questions I asked at the close of my opening post remain unanswered.RAZD...
My advice for you would be to research the matter further. Your statements are too general to be taken seriously. I respect your right to voice your opinion, though I think research would further your cause. Let me cite one such error: The word unanimous.
It is not unanimous that Ms. Schiavo is in a vegetative state. It cannot be unanimous that Ms. Schiavo wanted to be kept alive for no written material exists to support either case. This is a complex issue, and both sides concede this. It is far from unanimous.kjn

Crashfrog,You stae that "who has the right to make this decision for her is the easiest thing about this case. It's open-and-shut; cut and dried. The law is specific and unambiguous." This is not the case. This is what the whole issue boils down to. That their is dispute shows that it is far from ambiguous.
As you ask for a legal lesson here goes: Under florida law, the husband is the proper guardian. Having said that there are also situations where the law takes into account the application of "equitable principles." The judge is not bound by rigid laws, but is able to take these principles which include "changing circumstances which fulfill the purpose of these explicit laws, namely, to have a guardian who can fulfill his fiduciary relationaship without being conflisted to his ward."
Given that Mr. Schiavo has decided to move on in his life and start a new family he should have transferred the guardian status back to the parents.
That he did not, that he has not filed for divorce, is what fuels some suspicions. Some of them are absurd, but what you label as "personal unprovalbe, and generally false suspicions about the character..." that I give are actually no such thing. They are researched questions that I have not provided the answers to, because in the end all that we can offer is speculation.
The questions are certainly not contradictory. Your interpretation of the 'Do not resuscitate,' is yours do make, but it is very seperate from his recollection many years later that she had desired not to be placed on life support.
It was a miniscule piece of communion that was refused, not an entire wafer or a substantial portion of food.HolmesI do not see how a question based on a proven historical situation can be considered a blatant character assassination?RAZD
Ms. Schiavo's desires are by no means invalid. But as we cannot objectively determine them, as we could if she left a will, we must speculate. Alleged comments that are attributed to Ms. Schiavo, remembered eight whole years after she went into cardiac arrest, does not constitute as clear and convincing evidence.kjn

Ben,
You may have noticed that I do not believe that it was wrong to have the feeding tube removed. However I completely disagree with the circumstances that surround this incident. As I have stated several times, since Ms. Schiavo did not leave her desires known (Mr. Schiavo did not remember them until eight years after his wife entered into this state) the decision was forced to be made by someone else. Given that Mr. Schiavo had entered into a new relationship with a woman he called his fiance, even while his wife was alive, and had two children by this new women, I felt that he had forfeitted the right to make such a decision. Based on this I felt the decision should be made by her parents. As some have noted, the courts disagreed. It is really quite irrelevant now that she has died, however.
Some have suggested that this is a right-wing issue. Not so for even left leaning individuals such as Jesse Jackson, and Ralph Nader had come to the defense of Ms. Schiavo.
She is dead now, and I see no reason to continue this topic. Leave it to the lawmakers, who I suspect will be busy.
kjn