The WSJ on Schiavo
March 25th, 2005 | by Todd W |OpinionJournal - Featured Article
The Wall Street Journal has a reasoned and rational position on the Schiavo case, and I wish I had the ability to frame the issue so clearly.
And what of the local Florida judge–George Greer–who has found himself the target of vicious attacks ever since Terri’s case first came before him? The problem here is not so much the judge himself, but a legal system that makes it extremely difficult for any appeals court to overturn a trial judge’s finding of fact unless there has been an egregious procedural or legal error. Once Judge Greer ruled that Terri’s husband Michael showed “clear and convincing” evidence that his wife did not want to be kept alive artificially, her fate was probably sealed. No court was likely to challenge it.
…
But the biggest failing of our legal system is that it could not accommodate the most humane outcome–to return Terri to the care of her parents and siblings, who are willing to provide for her. Judge Greer’s ruling that Terri’s husband is the sole guardian made such compromise impossible. But how can it be morally responsible to let a woman die when there are family members pleading to take on the burden of caring for her?
It keeps coming back to the issue of custodial fidelity to the interests of the patient. In happier times, we all expect our spouses to have our interests at heart; but this is an unrealistic idealism that should not be maintained when so many questions remain unanswered.
The consistency of the judicial rulings, all by a diverse group of judges with various political provenances, suggests to me that the legal standards for evaluating custodial abuse are insufficient to detect or act upon instances where a healthy spouse might wish to dispose of a disabled spouse. I’ll never know what is in Michael Schiavo’s heart, but I can’t help but wonder how many judges exercised an appropriate degree of judicial restraint in the face of their personal desires? Judge Greer set this into motion, and what followed is the natural consequence of our system, as tragic as it might have been.
The correct response is to address laws that might not be up to dealing with modern health technology, and are not capable of responding to the darker side of the marriage contract.
