Terri Schiavo to be Starved to Death

Judge: No delay in Schiavo case




The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits state government from taking an individual's life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Due process has both a substantive and a procedural component.

Substantive due process encompasses fundamental rights . . . a state may not deprive an individual of his/her fundamental right to life unless a state has a compelling interest in doing so and the means used to meet that compelling interest are necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.

Terry has a substantive due process right to LIFE.

Procedural due process encompasses notice and an opportunity to be heard.

Terry has a procedural due process right to notice and a opportunity to be heard before the State orders her death . . . but she can't speak for herself.

The state recognizes that under certain circumstances, an individual might choose to end his or her own "existence" on this earth. Although suicide is unlawful, states recognize that due to advances in medical science . . . when a person may already be legally dead due to all cessation in brain activity . . . the body may still be kept functioning through artificial means. Machines can supply oxygen to the body's blood supply and keep the heart beating.

Under those circumstances, when a person is brain dead, but the body is still functioning by artificial means . . . a person may express that they do not wish to remain on this earth as a brain dead vegetable-like entity who is merely kept "alive" by means of artificial means. They may express their intent, under these circumstances, to have the artificial means removed and the law will honor the individual's clear and convincing expression of intent.

Terri suffered a brain injury in 1990 that left her severely disabled. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, his brother and another brother's wife claim Terri verbally expressed her desire not to be kept alive "artificially" should she ever require life support. Terri's parents and siblings, along with her former co-workers, friends, priests and fellow church members dispute that claim.

It does not stand to reason, however, if a person expresses a clear intent to have the artificial means of life withdrawn in the event of brain death that a person would ALSO agree to be starved to death when he/she is NOT brain dead and does not need machines to breathe for them or to keep their hearts pumping.

How can a person with conflicting interests (whose testimony is bolstered by HIS relatives) go into court and argue that Terry would want to be starved to death in the event of a brain injury that doesn't technically kill her, but leaves her with low brain function and (presumptively) a low quality of life? In the State of Florida, any living will that is NOT signed in the presence of two witnesses is invalid and unenforceable. As in other will situations, a witness cannot allowed to be a witness if he/she is a beneficiary of the estate . . . .

Terry's husband has a conflict of interest. He may be purporting to express Terry's wishes and maybe she did say she didn't want to be kept alive by machines in brain dead state . . . If I'm already brain dead . . . sure . . . pull the plug. But how do we clearly know she would want to be literally put to death through starvation? We do know, however, that the sooner Terry died, the sooner Terry's husband would inherit her money designated for her care. The longer Terry lived, her net estate would continue to dwindle. The word of one person who has a conflict of interest (whether he denies that conflict or not) should never suffice to establish someone else's wishes concerning the matter of life and death.

BUT, Terry is NOT DEAD, technically or otherwise. She still has brain activity. Even if she has a miserable life and she would want to commit suicide, the law has never legalized suicide. If someone walked up to her chair where she sat or up to her bed where she was sleeping and put a bullet in her head . . . they would be charged with MURDER! If her husband cannot put her out of her misery by putting a bullet in her head, how can a court sanction murder by allowing her husband to starve her to death?

Florida law prohibits assistance to self-murder:

782.08 Assisting self-murder.--Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


I don't see Terry's case as a "right to die" case . . . I see it as her husband's "right to murder" case. If Terry was brain-dead and the only thing keeping her body functioning were machines . . . then sure, pull the plug if that's what Terry would have wanted. But, she's NOT DEAD.

The State has no compelling interest that warrants the taking of Terry's LIFE (whether it be a miserable life or not depending on who you ask) through court-sanctioned murder.