« The Aftermath: Lessons from Terri Schiavo's Life and Death | Main | Most lawmakers want to put Schiavo case behind them »

April 5, 2005

Living Will--No! Will to Live--Yes!

Topics: Legal affairs

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the suicidal "living will" is part of the problem, not part of the solution to epivalothanasia (imposed death).

CURE's Statement of Purpose recalls that two Advisory Board members who lived in coma for decades "taught us volumes about the will to live, infinitely preferable to the living will."

As I observed in "Life...Choose It or Lose It!" (HLI Reports, July 1992):

Those who have signed the misnamed "Living Will" have already chosen death, however unknowingly. "The Will," as the Washington Post's, B.D. Colen (no closet pro-lifer) writes, "would authorize the murder of virtually anyone who filled out a Will, lost consciousness for a period of time, and would in some way be incapacitated on regaining consciousness."

Living Will victims cited by Colen include "a person who suffers a stroke, loses consciousness for a few days, and then regains consciousness and recovers to walk with a limp," "the person who is confined by accident or illness to a wheelchair, although he may be perfectly normal in every other respect," and "the person who suffers a partial loss of sight or vision."

"But are these candidates for what is clearly euthanasia?" he asks. "They may not think they are, but if they have filled out Living Wills," he concludes, "they are completely at the mercy of whomever may be responsible for their health, welfare, or affairs."

Read the rest.

Crossposted to Life Matters!

Posted by earl at April 5, 2005 11:04 PM

Articles Related to Legal affairs:


Very good, excellent, I'm so glad there is a way out of this. Tear it up, get a life directive.

Has anyone contacted management about the on line living will ad in this directory? It isn't always there so I thought it was gone, then the next time I came in it was there. This is the worst sort of troll. I'm not one to yell offensive, because it has been used to the point of nausea, but this really is offensive on a pro-life site, and I wish someone would do away with it if they can. Thank you

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 12:44 AM

Hey, where have all the bloggers gone?

Posted by: mary et. al. at April 6, 2005 9:46 AM

I cannot believe what I am seeing....people inside a church standing and cheering for OJ Simpson. Why is Johnnie Cochran's funeral being broadcast on television in its entirety????

Some people so desire power they will do anything, support anything, even knowing it is evil, to get it.


Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 1:52 PM


by Sher Zieve : Judge Greer’s Decisions: Another Look
Posted by News Reporter on 2005/4/3

In an attempt to not be unduly harsh or partisan, in regards to Judge Greer’s handling of and rulings on the Terri Schiavo case, I took another look at Florida State law. As some individuals continue to assert that Judge Greer ‘followed the law to the letter’ and was strictly ‘constructionist’ and ‘conservative’ in his rulings, I thought I might have misinterpreted Florida law as it is written.

If I’d made an error in my assessments of the case and in fairness to the honorable judge, it certainly warranted my additional review. I’ve made mistakes before and will, no doubt, make them again! Alas, it strongly appears that I was correct the first, second and third times.

Florida statutes regarding euthanasia (or as our friends to the left of center wish to call it ‘the right to die’) seem relatively clear. Florida statute 765.309: Mercy Killing of Euthanasia Not Authorized; Suicide Distinguished states: 1) “Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act of omission to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying”; 2) “The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide”. Note: I find the phrase “or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act of omission to end the life other than to permit the natural process of dying” of particular interest and salience. The omission, for Terri Schiavo, was food and water. Barely (or not at all in my opinion) arguable, is that ‘withholding food and water’ constitutes a ‘natural death’.

One of the arguments detractors and pro-euthanasia advocates present is that Terri Schiavo had ‘feeding and hydration tubes’ inserted in her body and those, alone, were ‘sustaining her life artificially’. I strongly disagree with that allegation and interpretation of “artificial”. But, for the moment, let’s assume it is true. Michael Schiavo and Judge Greer also ruled that no one was allowed to give Terri food or water orally. Had she been given sustenance in this “natural” way, Terri would not be dead, today. The evidence that Terri Schiavo was forced to die by the direction of the state is unequivocal. Also, let’s take a look at the phrase “the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide”. As we know, Terri’s death was not suicide. Rather, it was ‘death by the hands of another’; her estranged husband and the US court system. Florida law and statute 765.309 was, indeed, violated.

Florida statute 458.326 Intractable Pain; Authorized Treatment: “Nothing in this section shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, and no treatment authorized by this section may be used for such purpose.” Again, this statute is clear in its refusal to accept, condone or allow euthanasia. Then, there is Florida statute 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.” Seems fairly evident that this law was, also, broken. But, as judges are the ones who ‘interpret the laws’, in order to affect and impose their wills upon a gullible population, they have ‘interpreted’ the laws differently. Note: With the explicit language of Florida statutes, the only way (that seems even remotely plausible) they could have done so was to disregard said laws. Yet, another Florida statute that was deliberately violated? Certainly seems so.

An additional Florida statute, which seems to have been disregarded by the courts, is 744.3215 “Rights of persons determined incapacitated”. I’ve received myriad emails arguing that Terri Schiavo, in her condition, was neither guaranteed nor even allowed an attorney. Well, kids, that’s not what 744.3215 says. In fact, this statute states, amongst other rights afforded to the disabled, that “A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right: (l) to counsel”. That counsel (IE legal counsel) would be in the form of a legal advocate. Terri was denied legal counsel. Another of the guaranteed rights in this Florida statute is (d) “to be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation”. Suffice it to say, Terri Schiavo was not in any way “protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation”; unless one considers her killing to actually have been her “protection”. Insanity! Euthanasia is not protection and is, most certainly, exhibiting “abuse, neglect and exploitation”. Murder is one of the most severe forms of abuse.

Then there are the specious declarations that those individuals who signed sworn affidavits, in favor of Terri Schiavo, were “not credible”. Really? Then, why in the world would they have affected them? What did they have to gain? The only thing that three nurses “gained” was to lose their jobs after agreeing to testify against Michael Schiavo. Hmmm. Doesn’t sound like they gained much…or anything. The problem is that whenever the pro-euthanasia/ culture of death folks are challenged, they become agitated and start shrieking one of their mainstay mantras “it’s unconstitutional!”; even when that which is being effected is constitutional. So, the next time one of the death-cultists “double-dog dares you” to provide proof of your arguments on the Schiavo case, just quote them chapter and verse of Florida state law. And, if that doesn’t shut them up, there’s always Amendment XIV to the US Constitution.

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 3:54 PM

That Woman - great posting.

What irks me to no end is why Terri had a feeding tube inserted in the first place. She didn't drool, which means she swallowed her own saliva, which means, she COULD SWALLOW.

The nurses even said they fed her by mouth until Michael decided to insert the tube (were they just lazy?) It reminds me of that movie where the solider came back from the front lines and they cut off his limbs so they could "care" for him better in the hospital.

Terri was murdered and it was all legal. Then again, in Nazi Germany, it was perfectly legal to kill the disabled as well.

Terri, we will NEVER forget.

Posted by: Sirena at April 6, 2005 4:26 PM

(Columbia-AP) April 6, 2005 - Research studies at the University of South Carolina study say some 70% of women surveyed in the state say they were victims of domestic violence.

Something to think about: if 70% of all females are abused, who is doing the abusing? Is it a just a couple of guys? or, are we going to people who do this sort of thing in their own home for help. And because they see it as acceptable and not as a crime they retaliate to shut up and shut out those who don't see it their way, making the law irrelevant.

Posted by: that woman at April 6, 2005 4:29 PM

There is some good material that is being provided here. The big fight has only just begun because we must protect the most vulnerable of our citizens from this kind of thing. It must not be allowed to be repeated in such a fashion.

Sirena, Terri did need the feeding tube at first because she had a tracheotomy so that she could breathe after she was taken to hospital. They had quite a bit of trouble with it at first. However, it was not essential for her to stay on the tube forever. It is true that she could have been taught to swallow, but Michael would not allow her to have any therapy.

Posted by: Maggie4life at April 6, 2005 4:49 PM

I found this link to a "Will to Live" (not Living Will) and thought it was apropos to post the link to them here: http://www.nrlc.org/euthanasia/willtolive/StatesList.html

(Be sure to read the state-specific suggestions before attempting to fill out any Will to Live)

Posted by: Sirena at April 6, 2005 7:09 PM

That is a very good question.

I always knew that the Living Will is a way to Die, to kill yourself.

A Will to Live, is just saving your Life in every means possible until to the end of Natural Causes.

Is it irony that Micheal has a Living Will? Is it irony that President Bush and Laura Bush has a Living Will, so does that mean they want to Die?

Just wondering.

Another way is to Live, is not have a Living Will, it is a choice of Life. Choosing Living Will means you get to Die. Did anybody see the instructions to the Living Will? I saw a glimpse of it, it has instructions if you want to be kept on Venitaltor, on feeding Tube, have other stuff that you want on or off. It also have Medicines if you want to get on Morphine, or whatever...it would be nice to see the whole two pages to see what it is talking about. All in the end, means Death. Is there a check Yes and No? Box? Is there a Signature on the bottom? Anybody can check those boxes. and have you sign it at your Death Bed.

It could get there, ya never know. If they want money, this is the way to go. I am thinking some one saying Hey uncle, since you are dying, can you sign this Paper for me? Too risky. That is the reason there are only Two Pages to begin with!

Posted by: momforGod at April 6, 2005 10:01 PM

I was thinking since "most" are getting Living Wills including Pres. Bush and Laura Bush. What about getting a Prenup before you get married? So that way no one will get your Money after you Die. Right? More protection right there.

That is what Donald Trump did with his third Wife- a Pre nupital Agreement. If he dies, she only gets that amount of money already stated in the Pre-nup. But the sad thing that normal Married Couple like you and me and everybody else, deem to be poor or just middle class, not Rich per se, and there would be no Pre-nup that in case if you get Rich, that Wife or Husband won't get that money. Same thing with Lottery, if you divorce this person, they don't get that money either.

Would be nice if everybody got a Pre nup to ensure that they are not out for the Money but for better and for worse until DEATH do us apart. I don't see anything wrong with that idea? It is all about Love, not Money. Unfortunately, Micheal thought otherwise, he loved her but loved the Money more and then thus she is dead and he gets to keep the Medical Trust Money. :~

Posted by: momforGod at April 6, 2005 10:07 PM

I apologize, I got the typo wrong up above, "When there is no Prenup, then the Husband or Wife WILL get the money if they were to get Rich."

They should get both to get EXTRA Protection to make sure that their Death will be carried out and PLUS that no one is after their Money.

This is a MESS that the Congressmen has to deal with right now, deal with it and make new Laws to protect America! Not just forget all about it! Did you know that America is getting RICH by the minute! But unfortunately that most people die more and more with these tactics probably most with Disabled, Voiceless and Brain Damaged Ones.

Posted by: momforGod at April 6, 2005 10:18 PM

In Terri's case the law was defending the Right to Kill, NOT the Right to die.

I am still curious to know how a woman's ex-mother-inlaw (husband having divorced her) got to decide on her medical treatment when her parents had no right. What kind of law permits this? It sounds like if we become mentally disabled, it is the law of finders keepers???

Posted by: sujata at April 7, 2005 12:57 PM