Arrest Terri?

| | Comments (13) | TrackBacks (1)

My friend John Eagleton, an attorney here in Tulsa, just called me with an idea for saving Terri Schiavo's life, now that the Federal appellate court has ruled against the Schindlers' appeal. He says it will require some guts on the part of the executive branch, either in Florida or at the federal level, and a prosecutor willing to fudge a little.

Everyone is guilty of breaking some law. A prosecutor could charge Terri with a crime, issue a warrant for her arrest, and take her into custody, at which point the state would be responsible for maintaining her well-being until she can stand trial. That would mean medical care and food and water. The state would not be allowed to starve to death someone in custody awaiting trial. Of course, the trial would have to be stayed until such time as Terri is competent to defend herself.

Seems to me that venue would matter in this case -- the prosecutor would have to cooperate, as would the judge to whom her criminal case would be assigned. Which crime is used for the charge would matter, too. How would you keep Michael Schiavo from bailing her out so he can continue to starve her to death?

1 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Arrest Terri?.

TrackBack URL for this entry:

» The Real Schiavo Divide from Solo Dialogue

It is becoming apparent that the real divide in the Schiavo debate is less liberal/conservative than social conservative/traditional conservative. Read More


Michael, it's not going to happen.

Freaki said:

What an utterly horrible condition to be in. We should be exhausting all means to rehab her instead of trying to kill her. And what of her husband! Geeze she just had the cards stacked against here. It is very evident that after Terri spent two years in her “broken” state of consciousness that here husband was ready to “dispose” of her. He had grown tired of his vows of “for better or worse” and was plotting to engage the “untill death do us part” clause of the contract.

Mike said:

Income Tax Evasion?

Ron said:

Watch it, Freaki. You're skirting the boundaries of libel there.

Ron said:

Doesn't taking Terri into court on trumped-up charges violate the spirit of Republicans' distaste of "activist" judges, lawyers, courts and frivolous lawsuits?

Hmmm ... so much for the GOP's former stance of smaller government and having it butt out of our lives. With all this pro-active stuff, they're acting suspiciously like old-time Democrats.

Judy said:

1) To the Schindlers, read the bible, it states when you marry, leave your Mother and Father...

2) Terri S. has "No quality of Life".
3) Mr. Schindler is concerned about Terri not having any dental work, I am 53 years old and I need dental work.
4) The cost of this entire situation has to be in the millions of dollars, with Medicaid picking up the bill. When I retire in 7 years, there will be no money for me.

Final--You can see by looking at her, she will never be normal........



maybe we could arrest Terri for inciting a riot?

Not to get into a flame war with you, but (which always means "forget everything I just said prior to the word 'but' ")
1) Glad you brought the Bible into this. Read the whole thing (I know I have yet to accomplish this) and then get back to me.

2)I hope that you'll be setting up a website called so folks can determine at which point, according to your standards, we can start offing those that are a burden to us.

3)You're 53 & need dental work? What Quality of Life do YOU have? (old & can't eat? I say, call Judge Greer)

4)You're gonna retire at 60? Good for you. No money for you? too bad, you should have planned better.

5)So how much is YOUR life worth?

6)What can I say?

Final)Ahhh, so now it isn't a Quality of Life, the bar has been raised to Normal. The handicapped the world over are praying that you don't become King of the World

Mike, if you want to delete this, feel free. No hard feeling. I know that by posting this I may have dropped down to Judy's level, but sometimes ya gotta get in the mud with them

churchie said:

My comment to Judy and all. So yes I am a little inexperienced in the way of life compared to probably most who read and post here.

Who are we to determine someone's quality of life? I say that is up to the Almighty and no one else.
It is life and nothing less than that.

David Adams said:

This whole case is based on the idea that individuals can refuse medical treatment, and the court determined that Terri would have wanted to refuse such life-sustaining medical care in such a state.

So I'm curious to hear from those who would have such extraordinary action taken on Terri's behalf while dozens of other people endure the same fate month after month, what would *you* prefer the standard to be?

Should people be unable to refuse treatment in general? Should a written living will be absolutely required? I would guess it's a no and a yes, with positive consent required to refuse treatment? What about situations like in Texas recently where a terminally-ill infant was removed from life support without consent from the parent?

I don't think there are any easy answers to these questions, and I think people on both sides of the issue are trying to make it seem clearer than it is. No one wins in these situations. Terri's life and the lives of her family and husband were destroyed back in 1990. That was the tragedy. There are no good outcomes available.

Roy said:

Only two years before she died, my mother came to love and trust Jesus. In the awfulness of the cancer that took her in 6 weeks from first hint of a problem, she clung to that trust. But no church had ever taught her what the Bible has to say about the way you pass away. She had never heard the nuts and bolts, the how to, of facing the pain, the struggle. Her assurance that Jesus loved her kept her from some of the agony of the experience. But she could have had so much more help.

Convinced of that, when I returned to my home and the church to which my family belongs, I approached the leaders. I asked if I might teach a class on that topic.

Among the subjects I covered: terminal illness and life support.

Boiled to the quintessence of what it teaches, the Bible commands the preservation of and promotion of life. Among other conclusions, that means that in some situations one may or even ought give one's life for others. (Not situation ethics, but application of an unchanging biblical principle to situations.) If given the choice, I believe it utterly correct to refuse squandering my families resources to gain a few days, weeks, months, or years of life. By this I also mean that there is a breakover point, when I think it just as correct to choose to use some resources to gain life.

However, if someone is beyond the point of telling what they think and have never clearly indicated what they think, then the hospital must choose the direction of life.

In Terri's case food and water are that direction. So, too, are the other items of care, eg, moving to prevent bed sores.

Mike said:

Why not arrest Michae Shiavo for domestic abuse. Terri's life and body would then have to be sustained as a witness and evidence. It would also take the decision away from Judge Greer and put it in the hands of a criminal court. Surely they can find a judge that wants to save Terri's life.

Maggie4life said:

Judy, it really is very boring when people come into these blogs and give us the quality of life argument. This really gets my goolies. Do you want to know why? Because people who make that specious argument are doing several things:

1. projecting one's own ideas onto the thoughts of others;

2. judging others because they have become injured and disabled.

The other arguments are in fact specious because it is our contention that by putting Terri into Woodside Hospice a Medicare or Medicaid fraud occurred. It is a fraud committed by the Hospice and the admissions doctor, and it was agreed to by George Greer.

To David - you have been very busy with this one, and as I have stated elsewhere, the fate of Sun Hudson has nothing to do with this case. The truth about the Hudson case is that the child was terminally ill and the doctors had exhausted all options. It is a totally differnt scenario and there could never be a different outcome for the child. He was hooked up to the machine to help him to breathe. Terri on the other hand needs food and water. These are the base things in life that are required by everyone if we are to survive.

Anyway, after reading about the case and what is provided in the Texas laws I believe that there is adequate provision for people who disagree with the doctors to find another facility to take the dying person. That is what happened in the other misquoted case. The checks and balances that exist under the Texas law are missing in Florida. That is why we have this dreadful situation being faced by the Schindlers as they watch their daught being dehydrated to death in a very inhumane way.

Michael Schiavo should be arrested and not allowed to go near the woman that he is attempting to murder.

Aakash said:

I think that I saw, perhaps on the 'Blogs for Terri' site, an entry about how Terri may actually be elligible for the Federal Witness Protection Program. That's an interesting possibility...

Anyway, something has to be done. And now.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Michael Bates published on March 23, 2005 7:26 AM.

Motel postcards! was the previous entry in this blog.

Terri Schiavo roundup is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Subscribe to feed Subscribe to this blog's feed:
[What is this?]