The State Of Florida vs.Terri Schiavo

by Vince Daliessio

Karen DeCoster has a good point about the whole sorry episode;

First off, this "court of law" stuff is nonsense. A court of law can also order my house to be bulldozed to make way for a pinball arcade, as well as rule that I can be put in jail for consuming ephedra. I don't know if this has ever been brought up, but why is the husband the all-determining factor in this case? Why is he - a man whom she married under a State-approved contract - the one to determine what she wants, what she needs?

He was/is (?) her husband, but so what? That is a contractual relationship (that has already been broken), not a power-of-attorney over life and death. The death decision aside, what makes him the arbiter of life? Why not the parents, the woman who gave birth to Terri? Mr. Schiavo has moved on with another woman. His intentions *should* have been interpreted by this "court of law." His power over her life is what's wrong with the court of law. No one should be graced with that power by any jury or judge or marriage contract.

A very good point about the Florida Courts' basis for the decision - the presumption that Michael Schiavo (and it's spelled "she-ah-vo" -why does everyone pronounce the name "shy-vo" anyway?) is the proper person to decide her fate is based upon an implied contract, i.e., state-recognized marriage. Since Mr. Schiavo has already broken the terms of this contract, why is this even considered a valid basis?

Additionally, the legal sequelae of such implied contracts get very sticky very quickly. Although the argument is made that the implied nature of the marriage contract allows for flexibility and discretion, this discretion is increasingly constrained by both legislative and judicial fiat, so much so that increasing numbers of young people are declining to make their unions, even those that produce children, legal. "No Thanks", they are saying to the state, in essence. One wonders what gay people who clamor for marriage are thinking.

I have counseled many unwise and unlucky young men in my employ with the following; "once you become enmeshed in the gears of the state (via the family court system), your time, your money, your property, and even your life are not your own. They become the domain of an unelected judge, who will dispose of them as he sees fit." These are some of the poison fruits of state control of interpersonal relationships. There are others, as many gay people will tell you.

Anthony Gregory, in an article on LRC last week called for the reprivatization of marriage. I have to say that for this and other very good reasons, I think that it is an issue on which we could get large numbers of conservatives, liberals, gays, and others to agree with us, if we do it correctly and well.

God bless you Terri, and godspeed.

UPDATE: In the interests of fairness, here is an amicus brief filed on behalf of Michael Schiavo by 55 Medical ethicists. While not speaking to the propriety of state decision-making, it lays out the bioethical foundations of the case as well as anything else I have seen.

A timeline of the legal case is here.

(thanks to Jacob Hornberger at LRC)

For me, this case first and foremost is about the issue of human life and dignity, and how they are not really advanced by our current state system. The courts and the people who take Michael Schiavo's side seem to be saying "yeah, the case went through the proper channels, and Terri got due process - what are you folks crying about?" And that's true - she got what all of us get when we are caught in the system - process. Not wrong or right, good or bad, just a process. The grandstanding by politicians and others has been horrifying, to say the least - I mean, come ON, Jesse JACKSON? What rock did HE crawl out from under to show up at the parents' side?

And thats another good point. Courts are the appropriate place to argue contractural differences, but a human life is not the average consideration. And as stated, the courts have also ignored reality and allowed some crazy things to happen so....

Are they Catholic? In the Catholic faith, the husband comes before the parents. I always poke my wife in the ribs when that part of the bible comes up. Very good points made though, in the course of this debate. I think through all the poo-poo, the real idea is that the decision was made by hearsay (regardless of which side is saying they know) and that many folks feel rather icky about making a life and death decision based on hearsay. And a word about living wills: about 98% of folks under 40 allow for artificial means of life support (probably, I have no proof) with the feeling that while many of us (like me) would never want to be in Terri Shy-Voe ( :-) ) 's condition for 15 years, most of us would "hang in there" for a period of time. I have a friend who was in a coma for 3 months, then in a vegitative state for a month, and now works, drives, and is only minimally impaired. SO even with writing down your wishes, its still a judgement call..

The problem with all implied contracts arbited by the state is that they become express contracts on the state's terms. Invariably, those terms involve the abrogation of rights and the restriction of liberties.

Only problem with that is what's called a Commonlaw Marriage where the state refuses your refusal of State involvement. It is basically an implied contract and the State puts itself in the middle. I'm all for an implied contract between two individuals. But the State won't let it just go at that.

Harry Browne wrote a chapter in his book "How To Be Free In An Unfree World" about the state and your marriage. He explained that, once you acquire a state marriage license, the contract becomes between you, your spouse and the state. Afterwards, you and your spouse cannot even fully dispose of your assets without state intervention. Harry recommends that, if you are in love and you wish to unite as one with your mate, then simply move in together and live as you like. Leave the state out of it entirely. I just gave this same advice to a friend at work last week. He divorced two years ago (2nd time) and is contemplating marriage for the third time. I told him to live with the girl and just tell eveyone that they are married. Problem solved and no state involvement.

Site Map

The LibertyGuys

Featured Sites

The State Of Florida vs.Terri Schiavo

Comments

Post a Repsonse

Name:
Comment: