Florida Loses Appeal in Terri Schiavo Case
 

Florida loses appeal in Terri Schiavo case
Feeding tube can be removed
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...home-headlines

Gina Holland
The Associated Press
Posted January 24, 2005, 1:11 PM EST


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court refused today to reinstate a Florida law passed to keep a severely brain-damaged woman connected to a feeding tube, clearing the way for it to be removed. How soon that would happen, however, was unclear.

The Florida Supreme Court had struck down the law last fall, and the justices were the last hope for state leaders who defended the law in a bitter long running dispute over the fate of Terri Schiavo.

Her husband, Michael Schiavo, contends she never wanted to be kept alive artificially. But her parents told justices in a filing that their son-in-law is trying to rush her death so he can inherit her estate and be free to marry another woman.

The Supreme Court did not comment in rejecting an appeal from Gov. Jeb Bush, who argued that the state had the authority to step in and pass the 2003 law that ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted six days after her husband had it removed.

The case goes back to state Judge George Greer, who already has ruled that the brain-damaged woman's husband could withdraw her feeding tube. Although several legal challenges are pending, the Supreme Court was considered the best hope to stop the removal of the tubes.

``It's judicial homicide. They want to murder her,'' her father, Robert Schindler, said today. ``I have no idea what the next step will be. We're going to fight for her as much as we can fight for her. She deserves a chance.''

The case was one of two right-to-die appeals pending at the high court. Justices are expected to decide in the next month whether to consider a Bush administration request to block the nation's only law allowing doctors to help terminally ill patients die more quickly. Oregon voters passed that law in 1998.

At issue today was ``Terri's Law,'' which the Florida Supreme Court ruled unanimously was an unconstitutional effort to override court rulings.

The 41-year-old Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart temporarily stopped beating because of an eating disorder. In 2001, her parents lost an emergency Supreme Court appeal seeking to keep her feeding tube in place, but more appeals followed.

Terri Schiavo has lived in nursing homes. She can breathe on her own but depends on a feeding tube to stay alive because she cannot swallow on her own. She left no written directive.

George Felos, the attorney for Michael Schiavo, was hesitant to predict if pending legal motions would mean Terri Schiavo is kept alive for weeks, months or longer.

``The only issue here is when the courts are going to summon up the resolve to say, 'No more. We're not going to put up with these frivolous motions and give stays and permit any other delays,''' he said.

Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law and Justice chief counsel who represented the Schindlers at the Supreme Court, said: ``While there are still legal options available in Florida, the Supreme Court's refusal to take the case makes it more difficult for those legal options to prevail.''

Issues in dispute are whether she is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery, and if she had said before her illness that she did not want to be kept alive by machines.

Washington attorney Robert Destro, representing Florida, told justices to consider ``the most vulnerable of our citizens who cannot speak for themselves.''

Michael Schiavo did not file any arguments with the court, but his attorney had accused Florida leaders of engaging in delaying tactics to prevent Terri Schiavo from carrying out her right to die.

The case is Jeb Bush v. Michael Schiavo, 04-757.

I wonder how much of this case is just Mrs. Schiavo's parents refusing to face the fact that their daughter, who has been a vegetable for 15 years, will never recover. Saying that her husband, the one who holds power-of-attorney, wants to "rush her death" after 15 years of seeing his wife incapable of feeding herself is ludicrous.

I agree. Terry Schiavo is not alive; she merely exists.
I would never want to live the way she has for the last 15 years. I doubt she would've either.

I don't understand why Michael Schiavo doesn't just divorce her. He's been living with another woman for years, and they have children.

Unless it could be... the money?

I don't understand either . Or why doesn't he give POA to her parents with the stipulation that they grant him a divorce on Terri's behalf (I'm sure they wouldn't protest).

I'm not sure of all the legalities of it (or even what the laws are in Florida surrounding divorce) but in many states divorce laws have become very lax and broad.

In anyway, if we take nothing else from this, its the importance of having a living will/advance directives or some type of written instructions concerning the type of care you want (or don't want) if this happens to you. Terri was only 26 (same age as many of us) when she fell into this state so its never to early to have it.

What money?

I imagine whatever "estate" she had at 26 has gone to her medical bills.

In the event that someone does not have a living will, DNR order, or any sort of documentation stating their wishes, their spouse has the right to determine that.

He's her husband, that's his right.

According to what I have read, there was a $1Mil settlement with doctors who originally treated her with her cardiac arrest. Schiavo has said that money is long gone and she lives on medicaid etc. He has no financial drain because of her condition.

Again, this is an active vs passive euthanasia topic.

What she said!
I know it is not a fun topic, but this is why folx should have a living will or at least have in writing how they want things handled if G-d forbid something happens to them

And most important have someone who will make sure they carry out the wishes vs the selfish wishes of other family members.

(this topic recently hit home for Mr. 1228's uncle)

Yes, you MUST let your love ones know what your wishes are and put something in writing, no matter how old you are. I work with young brain injured people everyday who never thought this would happen to them but you never know and you have to have a "plan". It's a sad case, but this lady isn't going to recover and hopefully her husband is carrying out her wishes. If only she had written those wishes down! I know personally, I would never want to live that way.

Don't get me wrong, I firmly believe that everyone should give very serious thought to each and every aspect of what could happen to you, and what measures you would want or not want to keep you alive.

My father was totally against being taken off of life support, but because he didn't have it in writing (his death was sudden & unexpected), I had to fight several nurses and the ER doctor about this. My mother & brother were not up for that fight (like I was!), but he remained on life support until I noticed that blood was backing up in his ventilating tube. I would not wish that on anyone.

Whichever stand you take on this, when you are incapacitated, it's hard enough on your family without them having to fight tooth & nail to obey your wishes.

Most of y'all know that I'm in geriatrics, so I get my share of hospice cases. I INSIST that any DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) orders are visible from the moment any medical personnel enter the room - just so there is not doubt.

She should of been dead long ago. Her parents got Jeb Bush to step in and pull a last minute order, but that has proven to be wrong and a waste of the taxpayer's dollars.

Even if one's death was "sudden and unexpected," it's still necessary to have a plan for the unthinkable. I'm in my mid-20s, in impeccable health--and yes, I have documentation stating what I want done in the event of my total and complete incapacitation.

Feeding Must Continue for Florida Woman
 

http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArti...toryID=7705235


For the love of g-d, let this person die already.

:mad:

Sure, a divorce would be the easy way out but maybe he's actually trying to do what Terri would've wanted. Why would anyone assume he's in it for money? Maybe he knows she wouldn't have wanted this and is trying to put an end to it.

Why on earth do politicians get involved with cases like this? Isn't John Ashcroft behind what's going on with the Oregon law? It almost makes you wish a terrible illness on him so he can see what it's like.

I just don't understand how they can keep going back and forth with this. Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube was taken out and reinserted in 2001 and 2003. If she were a prisoner, this would be considered cruel and unusual punishment!

How much longer can this keep going on? Every time Michael Schiavo gets permission to remove the feeding tube, some (seemingly) random judge says "Nope".

Valkyrie, or another GC lawyer: Will there come a point when there won't be any more stays granted? Or will that possibility exist until every judge in Florida has the opportunity?