www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Terri talking to her dad...3/18/2005

Oops - dunno what happened with that last post.

The original question is too broad and ambiguous because one has to know the specific law at issue, all the circumstances, and what question is before the court.

Also, a judge, particularly on appeal, has other options on difficult cases, including issuing a dissenting opinion if he cannot convince his colleagues to go along with him. Dissenting opinions are written for a reason - sometimes they blossom, in time, into the majority view or are brought up again when similar, but not identical, circumstances emerge.

Fine. Then consider the specific point that I already mentioned. From the link:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
This law is directly opposed to explicit Catholic teaching. On this point alone of civil versus moral law, what actions ought to be taken?

You still are not specific enough, I think that is why folks had trouble with your question. If you are asking what a judge's duty is in general, it is to see to the law, although how an individual does that is always to some extent shaped by his individual beliefs and philosophies.

It's so troubling that we can never know what Terri Shiavo wanted for sure - like most people, she left nothing in writing. If she had said "if this ever happens, then kill me," then that would still be an immoral end result, but one she had a right to under the law.


What a judge does is largely restricted by the exact case brought to him and by the full list of "facts" he has to sort out. Most of the time they get some leeway in the opinion to say what they "really" think - that's where you often get the "oh, by the way..." bombs dropped. Thurgood Marshall once wrote a long opinion where he explored his view on the immorality of the death penalty and its cruel and unusual nature. Even though I disagreed with him on many things, I found what he said to be more persuasive than any other explanation I had read. It changed my mind, but it made many legislatures find other "less cruel" ways to kill people, because that is what their citizens' wanted...

Sometimes if judges think a law is wrong, but not necessarily unconstitutional, they still get a significant dig in that emboldens the legislative branch to fix a perceived flaw.

Most scholars, even on the right side of the ledger, believe the Florida law is constitutional. They also believe that Congress's highly unusual action earlier this week was probably unconstitutional - yeah, it probably was - but it elevated an issue that has been languishing in the background since the Cruzon case. And sometimes you step out of line to make a point.

I hope the Schindlers can get before the Supremes - there is some glimmer of hope if they can get a foot in the door - but I don't think they will get there. I hope I am wrong. I don't know who all they have backing them up - if the Solicitor General is backing them up, etc., at the Administration's request. It's hard to know.

Politicians have more leeway than judges in many ways - Jeb Bush, in my opinion, has shown himself to be a statesman in trying to take control of the situation - but, really, he was on thin ice doing it. But he was rebuffed and the Florida legislature, it seems, didn't deliver.

Hard to be more specific than the narrow questions raised. Of course, the decision making would inevitably be colored by all of the other details of the case. But I am interested just in the narrow dilemma posed. And I am surprised by "trouble with it", inasmuch as so many people find the issue of adherence to civil versus moral imperatives so clear when it comes to legilators and executives. Why not with judges?

I find this answer surprising. I would think the answer is to put moral law first, above perceived duty under civil law. Just as with legilators and executives.

Actually, under the law in FL, the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" of her intentions, and that was the specific finding of the court. Similarly artificial means of feeding and hydration are considered extraordinary measures that are within the rights of an individual to terminate under Fl law. What is happening is not a violation of civil law. It is a violation of moral law.

This perspective, btw, make some of the "politics" easily comprehensible notwithstanding Joe's rhetorical questions about NOW and others. From a civil law perspective what is being done is strictly about her wishes and her rights within the civil law - without interference from others, including even her parents, and certainly not polticians.

Someone spoke of the brother who has been with Terri's parents. I just received this in an email from the cinchar list, I have been on it for years. Thought it is very interesting and informative...

What you might not have known about the Terri Shiavo case is that Br. Paul O�Donnell from St. Paul, the head of the charismatic Franciscan
Brothers of Peace, is the spiritual director for Terri�s parents. He has been prominently featured in the media. What you might not also be aware
of is that the Franciscan Brothers of Peace in the 80�s started one of the first hospices for men dying of AIDS. What you might not also be
aware of is that they currently provide shelter for international victims of torture, helping them find ways of staying in the U.S. to avoid being
deported back to their native countries where they would likely face death. Br. Paul and Br. Mike Gaworski also founded Pro-Life Action Ministries.

Sounds like they practice what they preach. One of the saints says preach and when necessary use words. That works for them!

Pani Rose

Here is an article that puts in context some of the "political" aspects of this issue that have been touched on in this and other threads.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger33.html

I think the big problem in this case, and no one seems to be addressing the issue, is why is Terri Shiavo's husband her guardian?

Now it's understandable if someone is married 15 years or more, but here we have a young women without children, who, for all we know might have died because she was vomiting out of fear. That is, if vomiting really was what caused her problem.

I noticed that even the Harvard law professor flinched when Terri Shiavo's brother said they were not allowed to see her. Can you imagine any loving father, being prohibited from seeing his daughter?

Why indeed. Wouldn't one think that a man who is living with another women and fathered her two children would have conflicting interests?
I believe he gave up the right to be Theresa's guardian when he started dating a year and a half after his wife's brain injury.
The State of Florida should have assumed guardianship a long time ago. Time is of the essence now. We can only pray Judge Greer has a moment of enlightenment and changes his stand on this girls life.
I read Judge Greer was asked to leave his Baptist Church. I give credit to that pastor for taking a stand. The Catholic Bishop who wimped out and wouldn't allow his priests to get involved is quite another matter.
Sam

I think Governor Bush tried to get at that... When is it time to appoint a new guardian? Apparently in FL, they assume the spouse is the right person to be appointed unless there are good reasons for it to be someone else.

But when is a husband no longer a spouse and when is he no longer an appropriate guardian? Maybe when he goes off and forms another family unit with another woman? I don't know how it work in Florida, but it seems that a switch in guardian's somewhere along this process could have made some good sense. She has parents, after all, and they are clearly still engaged with her best interests.

Just because someone starts out a proper guardian, maybe they do not remain a proper guardian forever?

It's tough to say - but one side that loves her clearly wants her to be kept alive and are willing to do the work to keep her that way.

What troubles me deeply is that we treat condemned criminals better than people like Terri Shiavo. We don't put the poison into a condemned criminal, then administer an antidote or remove it before it kills, and then repeat the process while appeals go on... We wait until all appeals are exhausted, years and years, before we execute someone - and even then there is some chance of a pardon.

I cannot figure out what options are left to Governor Bush here. He's tried some creative legal approaches - all rebuffed. I was surprised to hear the family spokesman (one of the friars) say that Jeb had more options that could save her - all I can see are more temporary reprieves that end up with the feeding tube removed yet again. This is awful, cruel and yes, unusual - we would not do this to a criminal.

The legislature seemed to be the ones who had the best chance to save her, and they totally blew it. If they had come up with a decent law, then maybe a judge could have upheld it and the executive could have carried it out. Now, everyone is scrambling for a solution.

It's interesting (not surprising, but interesting ) that the media continues to characterize this as "Republicans vs. Democrats", "liberals vs. conservatives" etc. - yet prominent liberals like Ralph Nader, Jesse Jackson and Nat Hentoff (of the Village Voice) have stated their support for keeping Terri alive.

And Nat Hentoff is an atheist too - so it's not just us "religious zealots" anymore (if it ever was).

But it seems once the mainstream media decides how it's going to slant a story, they'll never change, no matter what. Weird. (but again, not surprising.)