Terri Schiavo

[therising]

Surprised this hasn't come up yet.

My 2 cents - I'm all for allowing people the right to die. Seeing the way all the courts are turning down the parent's request, you'd have to assume that the husband made a pretty good argument that this is what she would have wanted.

STILL....you would think there's a better way to take her out, than starving the poor woman to death.

[Tommy A]

this case is a perfect example of why everyone should fill out a health proxy sheet. it is very simple. you fill out your wishes,have your proxy sign it in the presence of a witness, have the witness sign it and your wishes are to be carried out. from what is happening in this case, the patient never filled one out. maybe she did not want to live like this. maybe she did tell her husband not to keep her "hooked" up. i believe she did say all this. the problem here is, just because you are a spouse, that does not give you the right to carry out medical wishes. now i am not saying that the parents' in this case are correct. i believe they are being self centered trying to keep their daughter alive. right now in her "lifestyle" she would be better off to be allowed to go into the arms of the angels who would carry her to Jesus and she would have no more suffering and the suffering of the family would also end as they would realize that she would be leading a more productful and fulfilled life in Heaven. God bless her, her husband and her family.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by therising
STILL....you would think there's a better way to take her out, than starving the poor woman to death.

The irony is...

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly from a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder.

[NoCtUrNaL]

In 1996, a guardianship court explained:

"The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. ... CAT scans of her brain show a severely abnormal structure. Much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.


"Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to re-create her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for many years."

That said...my take is, if her parents want to keep her alive using whatever means possible and are willing to pay for it 100% then I see no problem with it.

If, as her husband and the courts have declared, she is in a persistent vegetative state then she isn't aware of her condition and can't want for any other.

[300miles]

Originally, after marginally following the story, I sided with the husband on this. The woman's been in a 'vegetative state' for 15 years and she supposedly stated once that she would not want to be kept alive this way.

But after hearing more about it... how there is disagreement about her true condition, how she hasn't been properly evaluated, how her husband is hardly the one to keep Terry's best interests in mind since he's started a new family with another woman, when her parents are obviously willing to care for Terry even if her husband does not.... now I feel the parents should have the right to save her life. The husband clearly has his own motives in mind, not Terry's

I feel the husband's claim over Terry's guadianship ended when he decided to start a new life with another woman. (that's not a legal claim, just an emotional one.) I say the parents should have tried to force a divorce on Terry's behalf a long time ago so they alone had guardianship. But it's too late for that.

[dtwarren]

Here is one of the first reported court decisions in this matter. It points out that a living will would have negated the necessity of all of this and the procedure used to obtain this result. It looks objectively fair:

VersusLaw Research Database
Schindler v. Schiavo, 780 So.2d 176 (Fla.App. Dist.2 01/24/2001)

[1] Florida Court of Appeals


[2] Case No. 2D00-1269


[3] 780 So.2d 176, 2001.FL.0000281 <http://www.versuslaw.com>


[4] January 24, 2001


[5] IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO, INCAPACITATED.
ROBERT SCHINDLER AND MARY SCHINDLER, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO,
APPELLEE.


[6] Joseph D. Magri of Merkle & Magri, P.A., Tampa, for Appellants.
George J. Felos of Felos & Felos, P.A., Dunedin, for Appellee.


[7] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Altenbernd, Judge.


[8] Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; George W.
Greer, Judge.


[9] Robert and Mary Schindler, the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo,
appeal the trial court's order authorizing the discontinuance of
artificial life support to their adult daughter. Michael Schiavo,
Theresa's husband and guardian, petitioned the trial court in May 1998 for
entry of this order. We have carefully reviewed the record. The trial
court made a difficult decision after considering all of the evidence and
the applicable law. We conclude that the trial court's decision is
supported by competent, substantial evidence and that it correctly applies
the law. Accordingly, we affirm the decision.


[10] Theresa Marie Schindler was born on December 3, 1963, and lived
with or near her parents in Pennsylvania until she married Michael Schiavo
on November 10, 1984. Michael and Theresa moved to Florida in 1986. They
were happily married and both were employed. They had no children.


[11] On February 25, 1990, their lives changed. Theresa, age 27,
suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of a potassium imbalance. Michael
called 911, and Theresa was rushed to the hospital. She never regained
consciousness.


[12] Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care.
She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly.
She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.


[13] The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or
persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a
persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. *fn1 She is not asleep.
She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any
cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds.
Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.


[14] Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has
deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the
heart attack. By mid-1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely
abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply
gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid. Medicine cannot cure
this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her
brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state,
totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private
needs. She could remain in this state for many years.


[15] Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband.
Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and
family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to
visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a
professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a
guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his
wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never
hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives
the proper treatment.


[16] Theresa's parents have continued to love her and visit her often.
No one questions the sincerity of their prayers for the divine miracle
that now is Theresa's only hope to regain any level of normal existence.
No one questions that they have filed this appeal out of love for their
daughter.


[17] This lawsuit is affected by an earlier lawsuit. In the early
1990s, Michael Schiavo, as Theresa's guardian, filed a medical malpractice
lawsuit. That case resulted in a sizable award of money for Theresa. This
fund remains sufficient to care for Theresa for many years. If she were to
die today, her husband would inherit the money under the laws of
intestacy. If Michael eventually divorced Theresa in order to have a more
normal family life, the fund remaining at the end of Theresa's life would
presumably go to her parents.


[18] Since the resolution of the malpractice lawsuit, both Michael and
the Schindlers have become suspicious that the other party is assessing
Theresa's wishes based upon their own monetary self-interest. The trial
court discounted this concern, and we see no evidence in this record that
either Michael or the Schindlers seek monetary gain from their actions.
Michael and the Schindlers simply cannot agree on what decision Theresa
would make today if she were able to assess her own condition and make her
own decision.


[19] There has been discussion among the parties that the money
remaining when Theresa dies should be given to a suitable charity as a
lasting memorial. If anything is undeniable in this case, it is that
Theresa would never wish for this money to drive a wedge between the
people she loves. We have no jurisdiction over the disposition of this
money, but hopefully these parties will consider Theresa's desires and her
memory when a decision about the money is ultimately required.


[20] This is a case to authorize the termination of life-prolonging
procedures under chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), and under the
constitutional guidelines enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning,
568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990). *fn2 The Schindlers have raised three legal
issues that warrant brief discussion.


[21] First, the Schindlers maintain that the trial court was required
to appoint a guardian ad litem for this proceeding because Michael stands
to inherit under the laws of intestacy. When a living will or other
advance directive does not exist, it stands to reason that the surrogate
decision-maker will be a person who is close to the patient and thereby
likely to inherit from the patient. See § 765.401, Fla. Stat. (2000).

Thus, the fact that a surrogate decision-maker may ultimately inherit from
the patient should not automatically compel the appointment of a guardian.
On the other hand, there may be occasions when an inheritance could be a
reason to question a surrogate's ability to make an objective decision.


[22] In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to
make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been
allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this
case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate
decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers
could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created
the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa,
invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve
as the surrogate decision-maker.


[23] In this court's decision in In re Guardianship of Browning, 543
So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), we described, in dicta, a method
for judicial review of a surrogate's decision. The supreme court's
decision affirming In re Guardianship of Browning did not squarely approve
or reject the details of our proposed method. However, the supreme court
recognized that the circuit court's jurisdiction could be invoked in two
manners:


[24] We emphasize, as did the district court, that courts are always
open to adjudicate legitimate questions pertaining to the written or oral
instructions. First, the surrogate or proxy may choose to present the
question to the court for resolution. Second, interested parties may
challenge the decision of the proxy or surrogate. In re Guardianship of
Browning, 568 So. 2d at 16 (footnote omitted).


[25] In this case, Michael Schiavo used the first approach. Under these
circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to
the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is
sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue
life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the
ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a
guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to
duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this
process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or
matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's
discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad
litem.


[26] Second, the Schindlers argue that the trial court should not have
heard evidence from Beverly Tyler, the executive director of Georgia
Health Decisions. Although it is doubtful that this issue is preserved for
appeal, we have reviewed the issue as if it were. Ms. Tyler has studied
American values, opinions, and attitudes about the decision to discontinue
life-support systems. As a result, she has some special expertise
concerning the words and expressions that Americans often use in
discussing these difficult issues. She also has knowledge about trends
within American attitudes on this subject.


[27] We have considerable doubt that Ms. Tyler's testimony provided
much in the way of relevant evidence. She testified about some social
science surveys. Apparently most people, even those who favor initial
life-supporting medical treatment, indicate that they would not wish this
treatment to continue indefinitely once their medical condition presented
no reasonable basis for a cure. There is some risk that a trial judge
could rely upon this type of survey evidence to make a "best interests"
decision for the ward. In this case, however, we are convinced that the
trial judge did not give undue weight to this evidence and that the court
made a proper surrogate decision rather than a best interests decision.


[28] Finally, the Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was
conflicting, was insufficient to support the trial court's decision by
clear and convincing evidence. We have reviewed that testimony and
conclude that the trial court had sufficient evidence to make this
decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while very high,
permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence.
See In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273.


[29] In Browning, we stated:


[30] In making this difficult decision, a surrogate decisionmaker
should err on the side of life. . . . In cases of doubt, we must assume
that a patient would choose to defend life in exercising his or her right
of privacy. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d at 273.


[31] We reconfirm today that a court's default position must favor
life.


[32] The testimony in this case establishes that Theresa was very young
and very healthy when this tragedy struck. Like many young people without
children, she had not prepared a will, much less a living will. She had
been raised in the Catholic faith, but did not regularly attend mass or
have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her
religious attitudes about life-support methods. Her statements to her
friends and family about the dying process were few and they were oral.
Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence about Theresa,
gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for her.


[33] In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial
court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks
in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has
robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of
neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient
money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue
the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle
would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish
to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family
members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due
consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing
evidence to answer this question as he did.


[34] Affirmed.


[35] PARKER, A.C.J., and BLUE, J., Concur.





Opinion Footnotes



[36] *fn1 For more extensive discussions of persistent vegetative
state, see Dorothy J. McNoble, The Cruzan Decision-A Surgeon's
Perspective, 20 Mem. St. U. L. Rev. 569, 610 n.3 (1990); John B.
Oldershaw, M.D., J.D., et al., Persistent Vegetative State: Medical,
Religious, Economic and Legal Perspectives, 1 DePaul J. Health Care L.
495-536 (1997).


[37] *fn2 This case does not involve section 765.404, Florida Statutes
(2000). This new legislative enactment permits use of a "best interests"
standard for discontinuing life-prolonging procedures when a patient in a
persistent vegetative state has no friend or family member to serve as a
proxy.


20010124

[dtwarren]

The Florida Court March 16, 2005 decision:

[1] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT


[2] Case No. 2D05-968


[3] 2005.FL.0000994< http://www.versuslaw.com>


[4] March 16, 2005


[5] IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF: THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO, INCAPACITATED.
ROBERT T. SCHINDLER AND MARY SCHINDLER, APPELLANTS,
v.
MICHAEL SCHIAVO, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO,
APPELLEE.


[6] Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; George W.
Greer, Judge.


[7] David C. Gibbs, III, of Gibbs Law Firm, P.A., Seminole, for
Appellants.


[8] George J. Felos of Felos & Felos, P.A., Dunedin, for Appellee.


[9] The opinion of the court was delivered by: Altenbernd, Chief Judge


[10] Robert and Mary Schindler, the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo,
appeal the trial court's order denying their motion for relief from
judgment filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4).
This case has an extensive legal history,*fn1 and this is not the first
motion that the Schindlers have filed seeking relief from the trial
court's judgment.


[11] The judgment was entered by the trial court in February 2000
following an extensive trial. The trial court determined, based on clear
and convincing evidence, that Theresa Schiavo was in a persistent
vegetative state and that she herself would elect to forego further use of
a feeding tube. This court affirmed that judgment. See In re Guardianship
of Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo I).


[12] As a result of an earlier motion for relief from judgment, we
required the trial court to reconfirm that medical science offered no
meaningful treatment for her condition. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 800
So. 2d 640 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (Schiavo III). The trial court decided not
only to reconfirm that issue but also to review its earlier decision that
Mrs. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. Following another
extensive hearing at which many highly qualified physicians testified, the
trial court denied the motion for relief from judgment. This court
affirmed that decision. In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182
(Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (Schiavo IV).


[13] The trial court's decision does not give Mrs. Schiavo's legal
guardian the option of leaving the life-prolonging procedures in place. No
matter who her guardian is, the guardian is required to obey the court
order because the court, and not the guardian, has determined the decision

that Mrs. Schiavo herself would make.


[14] The legal process utilized by the trial court in this case is not
new. Long before Mrs. Schiavo suffered her heart attack*fn2 in February
1990, the Supreme Court of Florida had already determined that the express
right of privacy in article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution
gave both competent and incompetent persons the right to forego
life-prolonging procedures. See John F. Kennedy Mem'l Hosp. v. Bludworth,
452 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1984); see also Corbett v. D'Alessandro, 487 So. 2d
368 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); In re Guardianship of Barry, 445 So. 2d 365 (Fla.
2d DCA 1984). In Corbett, this court interpreted this constitutional
protection to apply not only to persons who have the foresight and
resources to prepare a living will, but also to those whose wishes have
not been reduced to writing. Earlier, in Barry, the right had been
recognized by this court for a child who could not have prepared a written
directive.


[15] Both the Supreme Court of Florida and this court have concluded
that the decision to "terminate artificial life supports is a decision
that normally should be made in the patient-doctor-family relationship."
Bludworth, 452 So. 2d at 926; see also Browning, 543 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1989), approved, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990). We have, however,
emphasized that the courts remain open to make these decisions under the
Florida Constitution when family members cannot agree or when a guardian
believes that it would be more appropriate for a neutral judge to make the
decision. See, e.g., Bludworth, 452 So. 2d at 926-27; Browning, 543 So. 2d
at 269. As we explained in Schiavo I, this is the approach that Mr.
Schiavo, in his capacity as legal guardian of his wife, selected in light
of the bitter conflict within this family.


[16] Following the exhaustion of all appellate review of both the final
judgment that was entered in February 2000 and the order denying the
subsequent motion for relief from judgment, the trial court ordered that,
on October 15, 2003, the hospice facility must cease supplying nutrition
and hydration through Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube. The hospice facility
obeyed this order. On October 21, 2003, the legislature enacted chapter
2003-418, and the Governor signed the act into law. Pursuant to this new
act, the Governor ordered a stay, which both this court and the trial
court honored. Thus, the hospice facility restored the supply of nutrition
and hydration through the feeding tube. Thereafter, the supreme court
unanimously held that chapter 2003-418 was unconstitutional as a violation
of the separation of powers under the Florida Constitution. Bush v.
Schiavo, 885 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 2004).


[17] Before chapter 2003-418 was held unconstitutional, the Governor
requested the Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit to appoint a
special guardian ad litem for Mrs. Schiavo. Chief Judge David Demers
honored that request and appointed a guardian ad litem. The guardian, Dr.
Jay Wolfson, has degrees in both law and public health. He submitted a
lengthy report to both the court and the Governor. In his summary, Dr.
Wolfson stated, in part:


[18] The [guardian ad litem] concludes that the trier of fact and the
evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa
Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which
clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition
in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance
directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the
court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical
condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of
fact to be clear and convincing.


[19] Now, the Schindlers have filed a motion in the trial court,
pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(4), for relief from
the judgment, claiming that the trial court's February 2000 judgment is
void. This is one of the exceptional grounds on which a judgment that is
more than one year old may be challenged. This ground, however, is
generally limited to circumstances in which the trial court enters a
judgment when it lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case or
jurisdiction over the parties. See Curbelo v. Ullman, 571 So. 2d 443, 445
(Fla. 1990); Varnes v. Kirk, 251 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971). See
generally Bruce J. Berman, Florida Civil Procedure ¶ 540.5(d), at 668
(West Fla. Practice Series 2003 ed.). As the supreme court stated in
Curbelo:


[20] It is well settled that where a court is legally organized and has
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the adverse parties are given an
opportunity to be heard, then errors, irregularities or wrongdoing in
proceedings, short of illegal deprivation of opportunity to be heard, will
not render the judgment void. State ex rel. Fulton Bag & Cotton Mills v.
Burnside, 153 Fla. 599, 15 So. 2d 324 (1943).


[21] 571 So. 2d at 445.


[22] In this case, it is beyond any question that the trial court
obtained lawful jurisdiction over the subject matter of this guardianship
and the person of Mrs. Schiavo at the inception of the guardianship in
1990. Thus, it is doubtful that the Schindlers' most recent motion for
relief from judgment contains even a facially sufficient claim.


[23] In their brief, the Schindlers first argue that the judgment is
void because the trial court, and not a guardian, made the decision as to
what Mrs. Schiavo would elect to do in light of her persistent vegetative
state. Despite the well-established law authorizing this process as a
method to fulfill the patient's right of privacy under the Florida
Constitution, the Schindlers argue that this process provides insufficient
due process and violates Mrs. Schiavo's right to privacy. The right of the
trial judge to make this decision for Mrs. Schiavo, relying on clear and
convincing evidence of the decision that she herself would have made, is a
matter that the Schindlers raised in the first appeal. This court
expressly rejected these arguments several years ago. See Schiavo I, 780
So. 2d at 179. Thus, these arguments are not only issues that would not
render a judgment void, but they are also issues that have long been
resolved in this case.


[24] The Schindlers also argue that the judgment is void because Mrs.
Schiavo was denied a full and fair opportunity to defend her rights in
this case. As we have explained in the past, this is not a case where the
trial court validated the guardian's decision for the ward without a full
and independent inquiry. Instead, both Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers were
allowed to present evidence to the trial court as if each were her
guardian. Id. The trial court then made its decision pursuant to law and
based upon a heightened standard of proof. That decision has been subject
to appeals and postjudgment scrutiny of all varieties, and it remains a
valid judgment pursuant to the laws and the constitution of this state.
Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any,
similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.


[25] We note that the case law generally allows a party to file only
one motion for relief under rule 1.540(b). See Berman, supra ¶ 540.5(b).
Indeed, courts have taken the position that they lack authority "to
entertain a second motion for relief from judgment which attempts to
relitigate matters settled by a prior order denying relief." Steeprow
Enters., Inc. v. Lennar Homes, Inc., 590 So. 2d 21, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
(citing Atlas v. City of Pembroke Pines, 441 So. 2d 652, 652 (Fla. 4th DCA
1983), 450 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 1984)); accord Mailcoat v. LaChappelle, 390
So. 2d 481, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Because of the nature of this case,
neither the trial court nor this court has enforced these general rules.
The Schindlers have filed numerous motions, but they have failed to
present any lawful basis for relief from judgment.


[26] For those of us who are not trained physicians and who do not deal
on a daily basis with patients in vegetative states, or with the difficult
decision to remove life-sustaining treatment, the images of Mrs. Schiavo's
face are haunting. But the images do not reveal the full extent of the
devastation to her brain and her inability to engage in cognition. Dr.
Wolfson, the guardian who was appointed at the request of the Governor,
visited Mrs. Schiavo many times in 2003. He was unable to independently
observe any "consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive
and aware activities." His report does not challenge the now
well-established medical diagnosis that Mrs. Schiavo's movements are
merely reflexive. As he explained: "This is the confusing thing for the
lay person about persistent vegetative states."


[27] Our previous statements on the matter apply with undiminished
relevancy in this appeal:


[28] The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective,
objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has
our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of
the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her
cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we
understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from
conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function
remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to
such a faith.


[29] But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving
parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to
make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her
husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the
law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to
serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about life-prolonging
procedures. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990)
(affirming In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1989)); see also § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). It is the trial
judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for
himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make
a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would
have made for herself. § 765.401(3). It is a thankless task, and one to be
undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed
to promote the value of life.


[30] Schiavo IV, 851 So. 2d at 186-87.


[31] We are well aware that many people around the world disagree with
the trial court's decision. However, when he became a judge, the trial
court judge took an oath, required by the Florida Constitution, to obey
the rule of law and the constitution of this state. The trial judge
followed and obeyed the law as set out by the precedent of the Supreme
Court of Florida and by the general laws adopted by the Legislature. The
trial judge made this most difficult decision after fully considering the
evidence and applying a heightened standard of proof that is designed to
protect society's interest in sustaining life.


[32] It is important for all to understand that the Florida
Constitution has long been interpreted to authorize the process used by
the trial court in this case. The legislature has passed general laws
implementing these constitutional rights.*fn3 Neither the trial court nor
this court can change this established law at this stage of these
proceedings. No one who considers the dismal history of countries in which
courts and judges have abandoned the rule of law would ask us to abandon
the rule of law even in this case.


[33] Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's denial of this motion for
relief from judgment, and we deny the motion for stay pending appeal. In
light of the trial court's order requiring the removal of life-sustaining
procedures effective Friday, March 18, 2005, and given the lack of merit
in the issues pursued in this appeal, we issue our mandate in conjunction
with this opinion, and we will not entertain any motions for rehearing.


[34] Affirmed; motion for stay denied.

[amamo]

This should never have played out in the press or by the courts.

Everyone how has there hands in this poor womens life or lack there of.

I think her mother and father are really pulling at straws now saying that Terri said I Want to Live

Her Brain Scan showed that the cerebral cortex has atrophied, not to be cruel but there is nobody home, but for reason unknown to us God has decided it is not time for her. Let her be and live out what time she might have left, give her the best care and quality of life she might be able to have in this condition.

[speaker]

Terri died a long time ago. If her brain were opened up, they would probably find a lot of tissue floating in fluid, as they are telling us. It's been done in cases like this one.The xrays and scans show this to be true.A plant can do rudimentary things, such as reach for the sun, wilt when dry. She is not there, and feeling little pain. The brain is the organ that processes pain, and it is not there.
The tragic parents, over a period of 15 yrs, have allowed themselves to believe she can "wake up"--encouraged by ultimately cruel people and advisors. When she passes on they can reassure themselves that they have more than done everything possible. The harm to be done by "giving" Terri's body to them would be the end of their lives as it would take more than 2 of them, 24/7, to care for her.They aren't that old but old enough for this exhaustive work to cause them harm. Their other children should be able to go on with their lives, too.
Now the next tragedy is some very misguided rich person putting a large bounty on Michael Schiavo's head, and that of the judge.How that money could be put to such a better use. Believe me, Mike Schiavo has put in more time than most spouses in a situation like this.

[speaker]

Thanks everybody for putting up with my longwinded venting. I knwo we all are disturbed to different degrees by something like this. Haven't been able to talk to anyone about this.

[dtwarren]

This situation, regardless of your position on it, has hopefully underscored and brought to the forefront the necessity of planning for different events in your life. Although it is a very depressing topic you must plan for it, particularly for your loved ones. Through wills, living wills, power of attorneys and health care proxies.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Cripes...even dying takes paperwork.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by speaker

The tragic parents, over a period of 15 yrs, have allowed themselves to believe she can "wake up"--encouraged by ultimately cruel people and advisors. The harm to be done by "giving" Terri's body to them would be the end of their lives as it would take more than 2 of them, 24/7, to care for her.They aren't that old but old enough for this exhaustive work to cause them harm.

Bottom line....regardless of the prudence of their behavior to you or others...it should be their decision.

[dtwarren]

It is not their decision to make. It is Terri's decision. Terri made her wishes known, unfortunately not in written form. Both Terri's parents and her husband presented evidence of what Terri's wishes were and the court determined that by clear and convincing evidence her decision would be to discontinue the feeding.

Terri's parents never controverted that she made these statements. In fact on a number of occasions in the court transcripts and in interviews they even said that they would seek to keep her alive even if they heard this from Terri herself.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by dtwarren
It is not their decision to make. It is Terri's decision. Terri made her wishes known, unfortunately not in written form.

Where, when, and how?