Florida Court Prohibits Terri's Parents From Joining "Terri's Law" Battle (ACLJ)

LifeNews.com ^ | November 4, 2003 | Steven Ertelt

[nickcarraway]

Pinellas Park, FL (LifeNews.com) -- A Florida state court on Tuesday disallowed Terri's parents from entering the legal battle over Terri's Law. They wanted to join attorneys for Governor Jeb Bush in defending the legislation that allowed Bush to ask doctors to reinsert the feeding tube that is allowing Terri to live.

Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri's parents, were represented in the request by attorneys from the American Center for Law and Justice, a pro-life law firm.

"We're very disappointed with the court's ruling," said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. "It is clear that state law permits the parents to get directly involved in a case to defend a state law that is keeping their daughter alive. It is unfortunate that the court did not find that the parents have sufficient legal interest in defending the state's actions -- actions that provide the only barrier between Terri and death by starvation.

Sekulow indicated the Schindlers may appeal the decision.

"We are currently examining all legal options available -- including an appeal -- for our clients. We will do everything possible to ensure that the interests of Terri's parents are represented in this case," he said.

Sekulow said the ACLJ is considering several options including filing a motion with the court to reconsider its ruling denying the motion to intervene; filing an appeal with the Florida Second District Court of Appeal; or, representing the interests of Terri's parents with the filing of an amicus brief on the issue.

In court papers filed Monday, Michael's attorneys said the legal battle is between Michael and Governor Bush and that, while Terri's parents have an interest in her well-being, they should not be a party to the lawsuit.

Attorneys for Governor Jeb Bush are expected to file a response to Michael's "Terri's Law" lawsuit this week.

The American Civil Liberties Union is aiding Schiavo in the lawsuit against Terri's Law.

Pro-life attorney Tom Marzen, who monitors end-of-life issues, told LifeNews.com he agrees the Schindlers have a right to be involved.

"The Schindlers should be allowed to intervene since their interests are certainly affected by the outcome of the suit," Marzen explained.

Michael's lawsuit also seeks a removal of Terri's feeding tube for the third time. The Schindlers' petition asks the judge to allow them to be appointed Terri's guardian in place of Michael.

Related web sites:

Terri's family - http://www.terrisfight.org

[gooleyman]

What would you think of amending such a section to provide that food may only be denied to patients with a prognosis of 48 hours or less to live, and water to those with 24 hours or less.

-----

I'd be totally against that, Supercat. Prognoses can be bought so easliy, as in Terri's case. If a person isn't going to live any more than 48 hours, what's the problem with feeding them for that last period of life.

My Grandmother-in-law was given just 6 months to live. You know what? She lived another 40 (forty) years (as in YEARS). There was no malice involved on her doctors part. He was just plain wrong. She wasn't on any life support, but suppose she had simply given up and jumped off a bridge or something. She would have missed out on seeing her kids and grandkids grow up.

Bottom Line: NO ONE knows how long anyone has on this earth unless he or she plans to kill that person at a time certain. Sound familiar?

[Deep_6]

Re:
"Wrong again, sweetie! Hand Delivery to GEORGE FELOS,
this 15th day of November, 2002. Filed in November of last
year, the hearing is tomorrow. Thanks for playing tho!"

I thought it was just a game to you folk, but wasn't certain until
your last reply!

2002  ....?? And?  

Thirteen years have passed.. Oh...  sorry 12. Never mind.

What's a year for Terri? She's not going anyplace, right?

[eggman]

They had 13 years to gain guardianship but chose to wait?

Bob and Mary Schindler petitioned the court to remove Schiavo as Terri's guardian in Sept. 1993 and the case was dismissed in 1994. A Guardian ad Litem appointed by court to investigate Terri's case in June 1998 and dismissed in 1999 after Felos filed bias charges. The latest guardianship petition, filed Nov. 2002 is still pending.

[blueriver]

Even MS said that she is not brain dead. He said it on the famous LKL show. Never once has this diagnosis been placed on her. So I wonder how you have managed to diagnose her as brain dead when no one else has.

[Coral Snake]

You are about ONE MORE personal attack on our religion away from the ABUSE BUTTON being used on you:

C.Ssssss!!!!

[supercat]

I suppose that's a way to compromise, but I'm of the opinion that the clarification of most importance is regarding the advanced directive. Without one, and without a person being able to make their wishes clear, any action taken to end their lives is to possibly kill them against their wishes.

I think we are both in agreement that what's going on in Terri's case is clearly wrong. I would suggest, however, that rather than trying to make all removal of food and water difficult, I think it's important to differentiate the act of removing food and water from a patient who is going to die of something else before they starve or dehydrate, and the act of removing food and water from a patient who would not otherwise die soon from any other cause.

Close the loopholes that one can abuse in order to kill another. It needs to be a first-person thing only. If the people want a right to die, that's perfectly fine, but they don't get a right to kill.

I see at least three issues here:

• The law should distinguish between actions which allow a truly terminal patient to die somewhat sooner than they might otherwise, from those which cause the death of a person who would otherwise not be imminently dying; it should also distinguish between acts which would inherently be fatal and those which would not. Denying a healthy person water for 24 hours in a 25C room would not kill them nor even particularly harm them from what I understand. Denying a healthy person water for 24 days, however, would.
• Some better standards need to be drawn up regarding what constitutes "clear and compelling" evidence. Even requiring written living-will documents wouldn't do much good if a biased or corrupt judge could accept what normal people would regard as obvious forgeries.
• The law needs to be changed to explicitly declare that any person shall be deemed mentally competant to demand food and water, regardless of any other mental incapacity.

How do those sound?

[gooleyman]

Deep_6 & Legerdemain:

What do YOU, YOURSELF, PERSONALLY gain when Terri dies?

For the third time, answer that simple question!!!

[WackyKat]

Can't figure that out? Or will you recite the idle chants of the ignorant and tell me the judge was crooked; the doctors were paid off by Terri's husband; medical reports were lost.... etc.. Heart wrenching idiocy.

There is a Cosmic Conspiracy among Michael Schiavo,the Schiavo family, George Felos, various New Age groups, about a dozen physicians, the American Medical Association, the Florida Bar Association, Judge Greer, scores of Florida legislators, the ACLU, the mainstream media, Jack Kevorkian, the "Right-to-die" movement, certain members of Free Republic,the EU, the UN, and Satan, to do away with Terry.

[supercat]

I'd be totally against that, Supercat. Prognoses can be bought so easliy, as in Terri's case. If a person isn't going to live any more than 48 hours, what's the problem with feeding them for that last period of life.

Among other things, it's common for people dying of cancer to refuse food, and absent such a provision a doctor might feel compelled to force-feed them.

Besides, if the doctor's prognosis is wrong and the person survives more than 24 hours, well then stop dehydrating them. Perhaps the exact duration should be shorter, I don't know, but the idea is that it be long enough that someone who doesn't want to be bothered with a stomach tube, IV, or whatnot in their last moments won't have to be, but short enough that in the event of misdiagnosis the brief lack of food or hydration would not be appreciably harmful.

[malakhi]

There's nothing wrong with Florida's laws.... when the legislative and executive branches aren't changing it to suit the needs of the day.

That's an interesting statement. Perhaps you don't agree with the law they passed, but it is precisely within the legislative branch's authority to legislate as they did.

Would you prefer to dissolve the legislature and let the judiciary legislate from the bench?

[Deep_6]

Re:
"and the case was dismissed"

Because of a "Kangaroo Kourt"?

Dismissed. They do not have any proof whatsoever of
any misdeeds regarding the handling of Terri's care by her
husband.

 

 

[FR_addict]

"I repeat my question: What do YOU have to gain by her death?"

I've been going through these threads and I still don't see an answer to your simple question.

Why should it matter to the other side if Terri lives or not? According to them she is a vegetable and does not have any brain function left. I want to know the answer to your question too. What harm is there in keeping her alive?

Our side has studied the evidence and come to the conclusion that Terri is alive, but brain damaged and it is very cruel to starve her to death. How anyone can look at those videos and not see a person there is beyond me.

Even though there have been doctors on both sides giving their contradictory opinions as to whether Terri is brain dead, I don't need one to tell me she is alive. Her eyes are alive and her smile is beautiful.

The doctors were telling me that my father was basically brain dead too, while he was still able to talk to the family. These types of stories occur over and over again. Doctors are not god, some just like playing god.

Some of Terri's nurses have testified that Terri responds and she has even said words in response to stimuli.
Terri's not going to win any awards for being brillant, but she is a person and she has the right to live and her parents love her very much.

Why is the husband so afraid of videos being made of Terri that he banned them? He and his attorney claim it is for Terri's privacy. They also say Terri is already gone; so what privacy is required for a vegetable? He sure didn't mind going into detail that a gynecological test would only be needed if Terri started having a foul smell. What husband would say that on national television about a woman he supposedly loved?

[Deep_6]

Re:
"it is precisely within the legislative branch's authority to legislate as they did."

It was after-the-fact and reversed a court's opinion; it is not
Constitutional and will be stricken.

You are wrong.

Good night all.

[sunryse]

I guess I need to just forget my children exist when they get married and try to lose those loving feelings I have for them.

I understand the whole giving to the husband thing, but does that mean the parents of a disabled person the state is trying to kill have no interest whatsoever?

[blueriver]

What is "brain dead"?

It means you are clinically dead except that you heart is still beating. It means they can remove your organs. Terri has never been diaagnosed a brain dead or clinically dead by anyone. Not even the media. Not even by MS himself.

[supercat]

It was after-the-fact and reversed a court's opinion; it is not Constitutional and will be stricken.

There is a long history, going back over 200 years, of legislators deciding to effectively reverse court decisions by passing laws so as to undermine them. That a law undoes a court decision is hardly a basis for declaring it unconstitutional; indeed, the ability for the legislature and executive to join together to override the judiciary is one of the essential checks and balances in the republic.

[sunryse]

>My question to you is: would you want your ex-spouse to >decide if you can live or die

Especially one who stands to gain a good bit of money at the expense of your death.

[F.J. Mitchell]

"Terri's family do not have a horse in this race..."

Only their horses ass sonova.....son in law in name only who wants their daughter dead.

[malakhi]

Dismissed. They do not have any proof whatsoever of any misdeeds regarding the handling of Terri's care by her husband.

Perhaps at the time, there was not sufficient evidence. Perhaps now there is.

[kenth]

The clear and compelling evidence of an advanced directive really does need to be defined and not relegated to the personal discretion of the judiciary.

With a clear advanced directive, the removal of food and water you outlined would be acceptable IMO. However, I would make it clear that no action be allowed to be taken to bring about the death of another without the clear advanced directive.