The American Spectator Where There’s No Will By Clinton W. Taylor

In Florida under the intestacy (dying without will) statute, everything goes to the spouse no matter what. Clinton Taylor states: “[T]he kind of testimony Michael Schiavo gave would not be sufficient (or even admissible) to affect the disposition of Terri’s property — but it is sufficient to end her life.”

Go read the rest.

Via Patterico’s Pontifications.

Hannity and Colmes just did an interview with one of the “experts” who testified that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS. He admitted that he based his conclusions on one 45 minute session. One. In that 45 minute session he had Terri’s eyes follow a balloon as he praised her for doing a good job.

Incidentally one of the nurses that cared for her was also on and she said Terri was was responsive, aware, had spoken and thus couldn’t be in a PVS. I wonder how many hundreds of hours she spent with Terri in comparison to the one hour the “expert” spent with her.

Also our good doctor further admitted to previously opining that persons in a PVS should not be afforded constitutional rights, and that we shouldn’t bother tube feeding alzheimer’s patients.
UPDATE: For those readers interested in the nurse’s revelations about Michael’s conduct, we’ve previously posted on another Fox interview she did earlier in the day, along with the transcript and video here.

UPDATE II: Here’s the transcript of the “expert” for Michael Schiavo. Also, hat tip to PoliPundit reader Newton for pointing me to this transcript of an expert who says Terri can get better. I’ll let you go right to the link but here’s a hint, he spent a bit more than 45 minutes with Terri.

Just heard on Fox News: Reporter Julie Banderas:

Michael Schaivo, of course, hopes they [the 11th Circuit] reject that appeal. Sources tell us, this is what he plans to do next, he wants to take the additional step of asking the courts, if, and I repeat if, they rule in favor of the Schindlers’ to include an 8 hour stay before putting that feeding tube back in Terri Schaivo, giving him time to file his appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

Time to make sure she dies.

The decision of Whittemore is out. Included in the decision is the finding that Terri Schiavo’s “life and liberty interests were adequately protected by the extensive process provided in the state courts.” I hate to throw a wrench in his fancy decision and all, but doesn’t it matter that this “extensive process” to protect her “life interests” will result in her death by starvation?

Matt Margolis had a post in February about Living Wills. Go read it.

He links to this site for more information.

Had Previously Gone to Police About Michael Injecting Terri with Insulin

J$P Instant Transcript here.

Check out this interview with Terri’s nurse. Among other things she claims to have found Terri in distress after Michael visited, along with a vial of insulin concealed in the trash and numerous needle marks on Terri. Her blood sugar level had also dropped dramatically. She reported it to the police and was fired the next day.

Police reports don’t just vanish. This is very significant if verified. Also, note her demeanor. I had heard about this previously but seeing her live she certainly comes across as believable. (Hat tip PoliPundit)

Welcome Michelle Malkin and Blue Eyed Infidel Readers.

UPDATE: The Anchoress has an interesting link to a doctor’s analysis of a Terri Schiavo bone scan regarding possible signs of abuse. Conclusive, no. But certainly enough to prompt further examination.

Welcome Junk Yard Blogs readers.

UPDATE II: From Lorie at PoliPundit: another nurse who worked with Terri will be on Hannity tonight with some more interesting things to say. That’s two nurses now (Correction: it’s the same nurse). I’m not sure how many of you have spent any length of time in a hospital type setting, but from my experience, its the nurses that really know what’s going on. They experience the day to day nitty gritty with the patients while the doctors briefly stop in for the rounds, make a note or two and then move on.

UPDATE III: More nurses are coming forward to substantiate some of the allegations.

David Limbaugh has an excellent piece out today about the Schiavo case. While I suggest you read it all, I found this excerpt to be particularly compelling:

But do we actually believe that loving parents — parents who would eagerly trade places with Terri in an instant — would place their own comfort above their daughter’s? If not, how can we possibly believe they would fight to prolong her suffering? In examining this case from a distance, isn’t it much easier to believe Terri’s parents’ assessment of her desire to continue living than that of her adulterous husband, whose conflict of interest should disqualify him from guardianship in this case and participation in this decision?

It’s remarkable that there is a system in place that permits life to come down to the word of one party over another. It’s unbelievable that the court would choose Michael’s word over the parents and err on the side of death.

From the AP:

A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman’s parents.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing her contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman’s parents had not established a “substantial likelihood of success” at trial on the merits of their arguments.

Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing Terri Schiavo’s parents, said lawyers were immediately appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to “save Terri’s life.”

I was lying in bed with my wife this morning thinking about all the things that just don’t seem right about this case: a “husband” who’s living with another woman wants her dead, apparantly loving parents are willing to care for her, the scenes of Terri laughing or otherwise responding, the fact that experts think that she could improve with therapy while at the same time she has been denied any therapy, her diagnosis didn’t even include an MRI scan, real questions remain about the actual cause of her condition. I was thinking about all these things and asking myself, “how can this be happening?”

Updates below – scroll down.

A short while back I posed some rhetorical questions regarding the burden of proof in the case of Terri Schiavo. The following are principles which I believe should be followed in making a determination in this and similar cases dealing with persons in a PVS.

Burden, Presumption and Standard of Proof – Greater than Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
In any forum of advocacy the burden of proof usually rests with the party making the assertion. In the present case the burden rests with the party requesting the cessation of feeding. But what is the standard of proof? In civil cases (I understand Terri’s case is being treated as such) the proof is on a balance of probabilities, although civil law permits flexibility within the standard to require proof commensurate with the severity of the allegations. Thus, allegations of fraud usually requires a higher level of proof. Criminal law requires that all of the essential elements of the offence be proven beyond reasonable doubt. As stated previously, this involves a recognition of the severity of the state denying a person’s liberty and is based on the premise that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free that put one innocent man in jail.

There can be no graver decision than the decision to stop someone’s life. Life is the essence of being and humankind’s desire to stay alive is self evident. Moreover, we are discussing the decision to end an innocent person’s life. The standard of proof therefore ought to be even higher than in the criminal context. Accordingly the burden of proof should be greater than beyond reasonable doubt – as near to certainty as evidence can permit. As in the criminal context, this threshold must be met with respect each essential element required to permit the ending of life. This threshold is a reflection of society’s revulsion at the notion of the state erroneously ending the life of a person whose only “crime” is to be among society’s most vulnerable.

Evidence Required to Prove PVS
Assuming the definition of Persistent Vegetative State is sufficiently definitive (it appears that the current definition may be lacking in many jurisdictions), given the above presumption and standards, overwhelming and uncontradicted scientific and medical evidence would be required to prove PVS. The courts cannot decide to end someone’s life if there is the slightest credible evidence which suggests the individual is not in a PVS. The contradictory evidence must have a credible basis. Fanciful or unscientific studies should not override otherwise sound conclusions. But any credible evidence to the contrary ought to override a decision to terminate someone’s life.

Evidence of Prior Wishes or Consent
While in many areas of the law courts recognize oral statements or agreements as legally binding, the decision to terminate someone’s life based on prior consent should not be one of them. Only in the rarest of cases where the evidence is overwhelmingly substantiated by extraneous factors and corroborating evidence should unwritten wills or testamentary statements be conclusive. To put this matter in perspective, in many if not most jurisdictions in the US and other common law systems, real estate cannot be transferred unless it is evidenced in writing. Written instruments add specificity to the transaction (for instance, can we say with any certainty what Terri Schiavo actually consented to, assuming she consented at all – did she consent even in circumstances where she exhibited moments of happiness).

Written instruments also add solemnity to the occasion. If one has gone to the effort of reducing it to writing, in specific terms, perhaps with the aid of a lawyer, one can be fairly sure that the person is serious about what he or she is getting into. How often have you said something you didn’t really mean or on reflection wished you hadn’t said?

Perhaps most importantly, having it in writing reduces the chance for mischief or improper motive. Take Michael Schiavo, for instance. Although his intentions may be bona fides, the circumstances sure look questionable. He’s living with another woman with whom he’s had children. In all other respects he’s no longer Terri’s husband, yet he maintains the right to make life ending decisions for Terri qua husband. Now the court is being asked to rule, in large part, on his say-so.

While I have not read the specific points of evidence in Terri’s case, from what I have read, it does not appear that the aforementioned principles have been applied. Proponents of Michael Schiavo base their support in large part out of a respect for the process. But support on that basis requires that the process is worthy of our respect in the first place.

UPDATE: Here is the definition of PVS under Florida Statute § 765.101(12):

“Persistent vegetative state” means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.

(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.

Hat Tip Michelle Malkin. Break down the elements and compare with the video footage out there. Even under a lesser burden of proof, how can the following be said of Terri:

• a permanent state of unconciousness
• absence of voluntary action or cognitive behaviour of any kind,
• inability to communicate or interact

Get that. “Of any kind.”

UPDATE II: Here’s a portion of the trial judge’s finding of PVS from Abstract Appeal:

Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.

Emphasis added. Note how the court seems to require a consistent cognitive response where the legislation clearly requires the inverse: the absence of any cognition whatsoever. (Hat tip to reader Anomalocaris)

The Federal Judge (James Whittemore) will hear the case at 3:00 pm Eastern Standard Time.

Via Fox News.

Spelling of the Judge’s name corrected.