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

[shhrubbery!]

Legerdemain's reasons to kill Terri: Let's give her substenace without a tube and see if she eats...if not, it is time to let the body die...geesh.....it does not take a rocket scientist in this situation........

Deep_6's reasons for killing Terri: ...if she is indeed without a cerebral cortex to allow her to make the least of voluntary movements [eating or drinking], then a choice would have to be made regarding the length of time she should be kept on life support.

Excellent exposure of these two death enthusiasts. Good work.

Maria Tetto who emerged from a coma after an accident six years ago, shares a laugh with her father, Frank.

I guess Legerdemain and Deep-6 would also demand the starvation death of Maria Tetto.

Maria, like Terri, suffered severe brain damage.

Unlike Terri, Maria has received aggressive therapy (though her parents had to fight for it).

After six years, she can now talk, make jokes, laugh, and write her own journal.

Maria still cannot swallow, however, and needs the feeding tube to survive.

[Xenalyte]

been over that.....her husband is her legal guardian.......oh, that's right...you must like the nanny state, the state knows better than her husband...

If the husband is promulgating her "right to die" based on a statement she allegedly made to him that's in direct contradiction of statements she is known to have made to others, and if furthermore he and his mistress stand to benefit financially from her death, then yes, the state does know better.

Let us know when you're ready to kill your wife for the insurance money, okay?

[Deep_6]

It's easy to find all that love in your heart, isn't it?

Use some of that love to try to understand that
Terri, unlike "Maria", is lacking a cerebral cortex.

According to all legitimate, documented medical
examinations, Terri is capable of only involuntary
movements.

An independent, court appointed physician has
confirmed that. No other legally qualifying proof
has ever been presented.

Terri is not "Maria". The "feeding tube" is not
there for convenience, it is the only manner in
which Terri can receive nourishment. She can
not swallow voluntarily, nor ever be able to.

Terri can not now or ever will, be able to converse
in any manner.

Please take the time to read and understand the
cerebral cortex and what purpose it serves.

 

[MarMema]

Trojan horse

"The government’s Mental Incapacity Bill applies to any adult who is mentally incapacitated and will therefore affect every single person in this country, because everyone is vulnerable to accidents or illnesses that may cause mental incapacity. The bill’s radical proposals include using a system of living wills and unqualified, unaccountable attorneys to force doctors to kill by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment and care. If passed, the Bill will be the first comprehensive law in the world allowing euthanasia by neglect and may become a model for all common-law countries."

[MarMema]

The pathologist I work under has told me that this information cannot be verified without a PET scan.

When you see the results of Terri's scan, get back to me.

Until then you are simply a very naive and undereducated person who has no clue how things work in the real world.

[MarMema]

Book recommendation

[Deep_6]

Some info:

Advice to Health Care Professionals

To avoid these two extremes, the bishops, although not extending “a definitive pronouncement on every clinical decision (p. 107),” do offer some specific norms for physicians to apply when making clinical decisions.

Life-Sustaining Therapies “Physicians should not impose aggressive life-sustaining therapies on persons for whom such treatments will simply prolong the dying process” (p. 108).

Patients’ and Families’ Wishes “Doctors do wrong who insist on maintaining invasive life support when the patient or his or her family make clear that the burdens of treatment far exceed the benefits” (p. 108).

Frankness about Death “A good Catholic doctor speaks openly about death and dying with his or her patients, is frank about the limits of medical care, works hard to prolong life and never deliberately takes life, but recognizes that there are times when treatments should be withheld or withdrawn” (p. 108).

From here

[Deep_6]

OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE FLORIDA IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY PROBATE DIVISION

CASE NO. 90-2908-GD3 I

N RE: THE GUARDIANSHIP OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO, Incapacitated. 

MICHAEL SCHIAVO, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO,

 Petitioner, ROBERT SCHINDLER AND MARY SCHINDLER, 

BEFORE: JUDGE W. GREER Circuit Court Judge 

PLACE: Clearwater Courthouse 
Clearwater, FL 33756 

January 24, 2000 
3:00 p.m. 

REPORTED BY: Beth Ann Erickson, RPR Court Reporter Notary Public

EXCERPT OF TRIAL
TESTIMONY OF FATHER MURPHY

Read it here

[shhrubbery!]

Terri, unlike "Maria", is lacking a cerebral cortex

Are you a neurologist? And if so, do you have recent, authentic brain scans of both Terri Schiavo and Maria Tetto in front of you?

If not, you have no business making the assertions you made in post 203.

(And btw, why do you put Maria's name in quotes? What is that ?)

According to all legitimate, documented medical examinations, Terri is capable of only involuntary movements.

Not so. Unless you're pulling a Bill Clinton: "It depends on what the meaning of 'legitimate' is."

Terri is not "Maria". The "feeding tube" is not there for convenience, it is the only manner in which Terri can receive nourishment. She can not swallow voluntarily, nor ever be able to.

Well thank you God for your prognosis.

Maria can't swallow voluntarily, either. She does not have a feeding tube for "convenience." Read the article.

[Theodore R.]

That's no tough scenario for me. I believe in right to life -- for Terri and all others similarly situated. I believe it is the responsibility of the state to keep Terri alive so long as the Almightly allows her to live. If that means perpetual feeding tube (and I don't think that woudd NECESSARILY be the case here), so be it.

When people ask such "tough" questions about life, they aren't really tough at all to me. They are just proposals to exterminate a living but disabled person in the name of convenience for one in good health.

I am sorry the American people don't seem to appreciate right to life, but I bet they would if it was THEIR life in jeopardy.

[Robert A Cook PE]

IF, after therapy and stimulation for an adequate number of years (NOT just one), we find that she actually IS in a persistant coma AND she has no hope of recovery, AND she is not responding to stimulation and contact (NONE of which are the case today!) AND independent doctors confirm that further changes are unlikely,

THEN

We will review the case at that time. (It might well be time to let her go, it might not be.)

We will NOT allow her to die of thirst without relief noe medication, starving in a hospital after a single man demands arbitrarily that she die for his convenience.

[Deep_6]

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 1997 13:27:55 -0700

Subject: Arizona Bill introduced

Note: See analysis of this bill at the end of the story.

The following press release was issued by HEMLOCK USA (Nov 17/97)

ARIZONA LEGISLATION WOULD EXPAND END-
OF-LIFE MEDICAL OPTIONS

PHOENIX -- A bill to strengthen patient-doctor
relationships and give patients greater control of
end-of-life options was filed today for the upcoming
session of the Arizona legislature. The omnibus bill was
introduced by Prescott Representative Sue Lynch with
co-sponsorship of 40 of the state's 90 lawmakers,
including members of both parties, the speaker of the
house, the chairwoman of the health committee, and all
three physician legislators.

The measure has the full support of Hemlock Society
USA, the nation's largest organization
concerned with patients rights and end-of-life options.
Hemlock national president John Westover, a Tucson
resident, praised Representative Lynch for forming a
consensus of many diverse interests. "Co-sponsorship
does not ensure a vote for the bill, but it does indicate
widespread concern for this sensitive issue," he said.

The Arizona measure is the nation's first to cover such a
wide range of patient options, including curative
treatment, hospice care, refusal of medical treatment, do-
not-resuscitate instructions, and removal of life support.
The bill would require doctors to discuss all treatment
alternatives with terminally ill patients and require
health care personnel to honor advance medical
directives and informed decisions given by patients or
their medical surrogates.

If enacted the bill would enhance opportunities for
managing acute and chronic pain of the terminally ill --
those with a probable life expectancy of six months or
less. Westover said the bill would give dying persons
and their families more information and greater freedom
to choose among available options.

Arizonans for Death with Dignity, a Hemlock affiliate
with seven Arizona chapters, is a major supporter of the
legislation. In a statement from Hemlock's Denver
national headquarters, executive director Faye Girsh
praised the Arizona bill as an example of consensus
building at the state level. "The Supreme Court justices
emphatically encouraged better palliative care and said
laws on end-of-life decisions are matters to be discussed
and decided by each state. Arizonan is leading the way."
She lauded the Arizona lawmakers for keeping patient
rights in the spotlight, following closely the November 4
vote in which Oregonians retained that state's Death with
Dignity Law.

The Arizona bill, titled Medical Treatment Options for
Terminal Illness, is the first bill to be placed on the 1998
legislative agenda. Hearings are set for mid-January.

Hemlock Society and its legislative arm -- PRO-USA --
are also supporting proposed legislation in Maine and in
California, where a California Assembly Select
Committee on Palliative Care is holding public hearings.
The Maine bill, introduced by Representative Joe
Brooks, is being considered in committee. The
California effort is spearheaded by Friends of Dying
Patients and Americans for Death with Dignity.

 

Note from DBE: The bill referred to here, HB 2001, was introduced November
12 in Alcor's home state of Arizona. It is of limited use to cryonicists,
but might be of some help to us. The bill as finally introduced is a
watered-down version of a bill that would have allowed "terminal sedation"
as an option that a terminally-ill person could choose via a durable power
of attorney for health care. The final version of the bill allows choice
of "palliative care" which may include "sedation or analgesia in an amount
necessary to releive pain or suffering." Previous drafts of the bill
included the phrase "even if this would result in a hastened death." The
practice of "terminal sedation" -- i.e., giving enough pain killing drugs
to hasten death as long as the intent is only to releive suffering -- is
currently legal and endorsed by both the AMA and the Catholic Church, but
it's practice is sporadic and pretty much under the table. This bill, even
in its watered-down form, is basically intended to write that practice into
law and make it easier to obtain. The phraseology is so couched, however,
that it is virtually impossible to forsee what the practical outcome would be.

This bill, however, has a tremendous advantage over a bill that would
outright legalize physician-aid-in-dying, and that is that this bill
actually has a chance of passing, whereas a "good" bill would have no
chance at all at this time. This bill is a small step forward (part of the
camel's nose in the tent).

The full text of this bill should be available on the web in about a month.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Makes no sense to flame you. You obviously don't have a soul that has any humanity left in it.

[tutstar]

see post 192

[tutstar]

see post 192

[Deep_6]

The word "euthanasia" sparks emotions at its very pronouncement. For those in favor, "the good death" is at once a wish, a hope, and a right. For those opposed the word means the intentional termination of a life -- a suicide or a murder -- regardless of method or motive. For the sake of clarification, if not argumentation, let's recognize at the outset that any decision regarding treatment of the terminally ill is a death decision. Whether the decision is to effect a full-frontal assault on the forces that conspire to shorten ones life or to hasten the inevitable, either option is a choice among options available at the end of life. Once again, what is new here is the impact of technology: not long ago there were limited options as death approached, and it approached at an earlier age. Inevitably, Nature would 'take its course'. Now medical advances and overall improvement in basic health have increased our longevity -- and now we stay alive long enough to get cancers that only show up as opportunity and age allow. Medical advances can now keep any particular body alive; so it is an old ethical question in a new guise we face: "Should we?"

Read it here

[Robert A Cook PE]

Nope.

The question here is:

Shall an innocent woman be starved to death for a week to ten days, dying ignobly in her own waste without companionship or aid based solely on the unsubstantiated word of a man who wants her dead - All based solely on a supposed "memory" of a "remark" brought up 8 years later, just as that guardian finds he can make hundreds of thousands of dollars from an insurance deal and go live with his lover?

---...

Not a court in the country would sentence a convicted murderer to die bvased solely on third hand testimony - all the while denying that murderer any appeal, any review, nor any medical care.

[Deep_6]

Re:
"Not a court in the country would sentence a convicted murderer to
die bvased solely on third hand testimony"

I have trouble understanding how a well educated person as you
appear to be, misses important testimony previously given and
decides to listen only to those that support a cause based on their
heart alone.

It's your absolute right, of course. And there is no right or wrong
on either side of the fence.

The URLs and text I posted on this thread should be noted and
considered, however. I had been quite surprised to find the
Catholic Church does not oppose the removal of life support
systems.

Thanks.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Look at HOW they certify, and HOW they check and verify that the dying person is receiving (has received before) the proper care.

Here, ONLY ONE MAN has declared the death sentence be carried out. One man has declared himself to be guardian, judge, jury, doctor, therapist, and appeals court .... and the sole witness to the relevent testimony.

And, in fact, there is credible evidence that same man is the prepetrator of the assault that placed Terri in this condition.

Without his unsupported word (8 years later) that she said she did not want an artificial breathing tube (irrelevent, since this is a feeding tube - she'd breathing normally on her own!) he has no case at all for killing her.

By the way, the Catholic church usually prefers to let its dying members get Holy Communion.

[greccogirl]

Oh I see, you're not interested in debate. Just jokes. Pardon me.