[Previous entry: "The Care and Feeding of Your Elders"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Give them an inch"]

03/11/2005: "Legal Lucidity"

Is there any consistency in our legal system? For twenty-five years corporate attorney's for the various healthcare institutions I worked for pounded into our heads the importance of charting thoroughly and completely everything we did with the assertion that "If it isn't written down, it didn't happen as far as a court of law is concerned." Medical malpractice settlements and awards proved this to be an axiom of truth.

So why does the court take a different stance in the life or death case of Terry Schiavo? The law provides a legally recognized way for an individual to make known their wishes should they become incapacitated, a Living Will and Medical Power of Attorney. With the absence of these documents, shouldn't the court err on the side of caution and choose to let Terry Schiavo live instead of ordering her murder?

Perhaps the practice of "divining" voter intentions in the 2000 Election has spread like a malignant growth in our legal system to where judges now practice clairvoyance as well as activism and are busy replacing their gavels with crystal balls.

According to this article, "A judge ordered that the feedings be stopped after finding ``clear and convincing'' evidence that she would not want to be kept alive in her current state.” What clear and convincing evidence? Because the one person who stands to gain something from her death said so? Where's the Living Will she signed? That's clear and convincing evidence. Her husband said so is usually called hearsay in a court of law not clear and convincing evidence. Objection, your honor!

Does juris prudence only happen these days on Law and Order? This is a text book case of imprudence. Since Michael Schiavo has a gain to be made, everything he says should be taken with a great suspicion that there may be an ulterior motive. That's prudence.

Mr. Schiavo has turned down an offer of a million dollars to turn over custody of Terri to her parents. His attorney claims that he is doing this out of duty to carry out his wife's wishes. That might be less stimulating to my gag reflex if he were more faithful to other promises he made to her like "forsaking all others till death do we part." The girlfriend that he has fathered two children with is clear and convincing evidence to me that broken vows aren't a real moral dilemma for this man so what's one more.

The court has confused prolonging death and sustaining life. Terri Schiavo is no more dying right now than you or I and most of us would not consider food and water extraordinary means of life support. They are ordinary means of sustaining all of our lives.

A court is about to murder this woman and that should strike fear in all of us. Some have called it execution. It is not. Execution is retribution for having done something wrong. This woman has done nothing wrong. This is cold blooded court ordered murder and we need to start revamping our legal system. Judicial activism has clearly become life threateningly out of control.

If you do not have a Living Will and Medical Power of Attorney and you wish to declare your wishes should you become incapacitated, please call your attorney and make an appointment right now. You can spell out the circumstances and your desires clearly and spare your family what Terri's family is going through and the life you save, may be your own.