Terri Schiavo Case Study

Do you believe that the decision to disconnect Terri Schiavo from life-support was justified? Explain your reasoning, use research, and include your links.

I do not believe that the decision to disconnect Terri Schiavo from life-support was justified. There are too many facts and notes about her that lead me to believe she was not in a vegetative state.  Also, the reaction and actions of her husband at the time make me believe he didn't want the best for her, rather himself. With this case, it is very hard to decide what Terri actually wanted because "she has no written directive. Schiavo makes no mention that Terri had any type of verbal living will." 
Also, Michael Schiavo (her husband at the time) acted in many ways that make me believe he didn't care very much about Terri and didn't want what was best for her. It is shown during many different occasions that Michael attempted to keep Terri's friends and immediate family in the dark about her conditions and treatment. "On February 14, 1993, Michael Schiavo and Terri's parents have a disagreement over the course of her care and the use of her trust to provide therapy. Schiavo discontinued any contact with Terri's family and took steps to deny their access to her.n the spring of that year, subsequent to split between Michael Schiavo and Terri's family, Schiavo places DNR (do not resuscitate) in Terri's medical records, and instructs nursing home not to reveal any medical information regarding Terri to her family." During that summer, Terri developed a UT that would kill her without treatment. Michael declined the treatment. Over the span of the next few years, Michael (without divorcing Terri) involved himself in other relationships and ended up getting engaged and having children with another woman.
Another fact that can't go unnoticed, is the inconsistency with statements regarding what Terri would have wanted. "Michael Schiavo testified that Terri told him in the mid-1980s that she would not want life support after the couple had watched a movie depicting a patient on a ventilator. Schiavo's brother and sister-in-law also testified that Terri had made statements to them regarding mechanical life support." But, "Diane Meyer (a lifetime friend of Terri's) shared her recollection of a conversation she had with Terri after watching the 1982 television movie about Karen Ann Quinlan. Meyer said Terri told her she did not agree with the well-known decision by Quinlan’s parents to take their comatose daughter off her respirator. Meyer remembers Terri wondering aloud how doctors and lawyers could possibly know what Quinlan was feeling or what she would want. 'Where there’s life,' Meyer recalled Terri saying, according to the The Buffalo News, 'there’s hope.'" Also, Terri's parents had a statement on the matter. They argued it would be "out of character" for Terri to say and believe such a thing, as she was a devout Roman Catholic and believed in the sanctity of life. When all of this information was shown to the court, "Judge Greer dismissed testimony of Terri's parents, siblings, Terri's life-long girlfriend and closest friend in Florida, all testifying that Terri never made any statements regarding situations if she were to become disabled. Greer found Schiavo and his family's testimony to be clear and convincing evidence and ordered that Terri's tube be removed." 
What also bothers me, is that when Terri's feeding tube was removed on April 21, 2001, she "endured more than sixty hours without nutrition and hydration", without officially being pronounced dead. After this event another judge, Judge Frank Quesada, spoke that he believed her case should be reheard, and retried. 
By looking through a ton of different research, I have come to my conclusion on the matter. That Terri Schiavo's wish in an event like this is was very unclear, and misinterpreted. I also can conclude that Michael Schiavo's actions were not based for Terri's benefit over his own. The fact that he continued to shut out her immediate family leads me to believe this. Also, the fact that he was in relations with another woman, while married to Terri without divorcing her. It is presumed that he did not go through with the divorce because he wanted to continue being a guardian of Terri, rather than giving the rights to her parents. In my opinion this is very wrong and should have been revoked in court in the very beginning, as Michael has shown numerous times he should not be the one in charge of Terri and her decisions while in an unresponsive state. 
Which also makes me believe that the decision to disconnect Terri Schiavo from life-support was not justified is the evidence shown that she was not in an unresponsive state the entire period she was undergoing treatment. As shown by evidence of a video tape and testimonies in court, it was reported that Terri could laugh, track things with her eyes, greet people, moan, etc. All of these functions, in my opinion, are signs of life. But, during trial Michael claimed that these were signs of pain, etc. I believe the lengths of this tape were not considered during court, which is a shame. 
I also think that if this case were to have been tried by a different judge, the outcome would be different. I think this because everyone is different, and everyone has different views on different things. This is shown throughout the trial, especially "in 2000 the judge ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo and the feed tubing was removed, but the Schindlers sued in another court and the judge there ordered the tube reinserted. In 2002 the original judge again ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo and, after a Florida appeals court upheld (2003) the ruling, the tube was removed. The Florida legislature, however, quickly passed a law allowing Governor Jeb Bush to intervene, and he ordered the feeding resumed. The Florida supreme court ultimately ruled (2004) that "Terri's Law" was unconstitutional and violated Terri Schiavo's right to privacy, but Governor Bush appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which rejected his petition." As you can see, during the course of one event, many different people changed the outcome of Terri's life by deciding to order a feeding tube or not. What could have happened if a different judge had been in charge of Terri's entire trial? I think it is unfair to Terri and her family that this long, ongoing trial and procedure was only tried by one judge. The judge throughout the trial seemed to be very almost biased with Michael's decisions, which seems very unfair to me. I believe that with a trial of this importance, there should have been another judge or official added to this trial for another insight or opinion on the matter. 

5. AUTONOMY: Who should decide for Terri Schiavo? When and why should other people decide for me? 
 In my opinion, the decision to make Michael Schiavo the legal guardian of Terri Schiavo was very rushed and impractical. I believe that this decision was one of the most important decisions in this case, and it should've been a longer process. Honestly, whose choice is it to decide the legal guardian for someone who can't decide on their own? There should have been a trial put into place regarding this important decision. For example, Terri's family members and Michael Schiavo had many disagreements throughout the many years that the legal battles took place. I believe that instead of instituting a guardian ad litem, they should've done an entire court process to determine who would be best suited to have the legal control over Terri. The court system should've investigated both families on their past experiences, relationships with Terri, and Terri's past reactions to prove who would have been more fit to have control over Terri. In my opinion, Terri's parents should have been given the rights to decide for Terri. This is made evident simply by Michael's actions with other women and then things he said to his family members about Terri's "failed" condition, etc. I think Terri's parents would have made better choices regarding Terri's conditions and would have thought things through quicker before deciding, as she is their child.
When I get older, if anything like this were to happen, it would be a very difficult for me to decide the information that was argued during Terri's case. I think someone should decide for me, when I am unable to decide for myself. For example, when my brain and cognitive are so damaged where I cannot make logical decisions for myself, someone else should decide for me. Other people should then decide for me because I am incapable of choosing what's best for me. Someone else should have the opportunity and authority to make decisions for me when I cannot make them for myself due to brain damage, etc.