Skip to comments.
Judge dismisses need for witnesses in Schiavo case; legal outlook 'gloomy'
sbcbaptistpress.org ^
| Dec 29, 2003
| Joni B. Hannigan
Posted on 12/30/2003 7:28:35 AM PST by wisconsinconservative
CLEARWATER, Fla. (BP)-A circuit court judge has announced that he needs neither testimony from witnesses nor a jury in order to decide the constitutionality of the quick action by the Florida legislature and Gov. Jeb Bush to save the life of Terri Schiavo last October.
Circuit Court Judge Douglas W. Baird told attorneys for Bush Dec. 23 he is ready to rule on the constitutionality of "Terri's Law," which permitted the governor to counteract an earlier court order that had removed Schiavo's feeding tube.
Baird's announcement opens the door for the removal of the 40-year old brain-damaged woman's source of nourishment and hydration.
Baird, who previously has indicated he believes the action in behalf of Schiavo was unconstitutional, did not issue his decision immediately but said he will wait until an appeals court rules on three actions Bush has filed in the case. It is unclear when the appeals court will rule, although legal observers suggest it could be days or weeks.
Terri Schiavo, who collapsed in 1990 due to unusual circumstances that caused her heart to stop beating, is now in what some doctors term a "persistent vegetative state."
Michael Schiavo, Terri's husband and legal guardian, has been in a bitter dispute for nearly a decade with Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who believe she never received the therapy that would have allowed her to improve.
Michael Schiavo, according to court records, has not sought aggressive therapy for Terri in nearly a decade. After winning a malpractice settlement in 1992, Michael placed a "do not resuscitate" order on Terri and, more than eight years ago, he began a long-term relationship with another woman with whom he has now fathered two children.
In October, the case received national attention after the Florida legislature empowered Bush to issue an executive order which provided for the reinsertion of Terri's feeding and hydration tube which Michael Schiavo, with court approval, had doctors remove six days earlier. It was predicted that Terri would have died within 10 days had her only source of nutrition and hydration not be reestablished.
In court documents filed since that time, Baird has refused a request by Bush attorneys to interview witnesses. One of the witnesses would have been Michael Schiavo's live-in girlfriend. Others included caregivers who have had contact with Terri Schiavo and who might have been able to speak to her husband's claim that it would be her wish to die because of her medical condition.
"The prognosis is gloomy," said Kenneth Connor, who represents Bush and the legislature, according to a WorldNetDaily report. If the governor loses, Connor said he will appeal.
Michael Schiavo's attorney, George Felos, told reporters he is "encouraged" by Baird's decision against new testimony, but did not claim victory. Felos cited privacy issues in charging Terri's law unconstitutional.
Connor argued, however, that Bush's actions were necessary to protect Terri Schiavo, one of Florida's most "particularly vulnerable" citizens.
Terri's Law has provided an extra layer of protection in cases where there are no written directives by requiring an independent advocate be appointed to represent Terri Schiavo's interests.
"The implications of this case reach beyond the life and death of the young woman in this heart-wrenching tragedy," Bush said in a statement. "The law insures Floridians who cannot speak for themselves will have an independent, neutral representative to advocate for their interests and wishes. If we abandon the law, we accept a dangerous precedent with the power to erode the rights of self-determination of people with disabilities."
The governor's questions are similar to those raised in a petition filed by Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, seeking the removal of Michael Schiavo as Terri's guardian. The petition charged Michael Schiavo could have both abused and neglected Terri and that he has had an apparent conflict of interest.
Lawyers on both sides expect Baird's pending ruling is just another step before the case eventually ends up before the Florida Supreme Court.
--30--
Joni B. Hannigan is managing editor of Florida Baptist Witness. For more information see "Terri Schiavo: A life at stake" at www.FloridaBaptistWitness.com.
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: baird; schiavo; shiavo; speech; terri; terrischiavo; terrischindler; terrisfight
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
To: pickyourpoison; cyn; supercat; Orlando; wisconsinconservative; Ragtime Cowgirl; nutmeg; msmagoo; ...
ping
2
posted on
12/30/2003 7:30:49 AM PST
by
wisconsinconservative
("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
To: wisconsinconservative; floriduh voter; cyn; Pegita; pc93; nickcarraway; CindyDawg; Republic; ...
The impending ruling of Judge Baird makes me feel gloomy......the attempt to declare 'Terri's Law' unconstitutional will probably go to the FL SC which (we know) is controlled by 'pro death' liberals.
Pings for comment & continued prayers for Terri's Fight for Life!
3
posted on
12/30/2003 7:45:08 AM PST
by
JulieRNR21
(One good term deserves another! Take W-04....Across America!)
To: JulieRNR21
Thanks for sending out the pings. Sorry to anyone I missed.
Looks like we need a miracle here. Keep praying.
4
posted on
12/30/2003 7:48:49 AM PST
by
wisconsinconservative
("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
To: wisconsinconservative
Heavenly Father, we return to give You thanks that You are Sovereign God and that nothing comes to us that is not sifted through our Father's hands. We cannot know the ways in which You are working on behalf of this mother's child, but we know that You have stirred the hearts of people to defend her in prayer and in action. We continually seek that earthly judge who will render justice to Terri, and we will be as persistent as the woman in the Bible who would not be stopped until she was granted relief.
Strengthen Terri's legal team for the challenges ahead. Prepare the way through the Spirit's working in the hearts of those charged with righteous rule ... undertake on their behalf, that they not be found guilty of denying justice to one who is not allowed to speak for herself. Be her voice, Creator God, and speak that all the world may hear that in Your hand, and in Your hand, alone, is the life of every living thing, and the breath of all mankind.
Hear our prayer, O Lord ... hear our prayer, O Lord ... incline thine ear to us, and grant us thy peace ... Amen
5
posted on
12/30/2003 8:10:11 AM PST
by
Pegita
('Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His Word ...)
To: wisconsinconservative
Correct me if I'm wrong, but since
Jeb was no party in the original
litigation and is a defendant in
this one, wasn't Connor optimistic
(at first) that Jeb would by right
get DISCOVERY here???
By right under the Constitution of
the United States(due process)?
Not this despicable judge, nor the FL Supremes, are empowered to say
the final word about THAT.
Am I right or wrong?
I don't get this!
To: Pegita
Beautiful, Pegita. Amen.
Do you mind my forwarding your prayer to a few Fla. judges?
7
posted on
12/30/2003 8:25:19 AM PST
by
Ragtime Cowgirl
( "Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth." ~ Pres. Bush, Baghdad)
To: JulieRNR21; floriduh voter; Republic; tutstar; PrepareToLeave; amdgmary; Pegita
Thanks.
Let's remember Gideon in Judges 6 - 7.
Judges 7:4 "But the Lord said to Gideon, "there are still too many men." !!
I'm praying to see this with spiritual eyes, for increased faith, and at the same time, for increased strength & wisdom to do whatever needs to be done.
8
posted on
12/30/2003 9:07:49 AM PST
by
cyn
(cynic#456,789)
To: wisconsinconservative; sweetliberty
All we can do is pray.
9
posted on
12/30/2003 9:07:51 AM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Once a prayer is uttered, Ragtime, the Lord sends it to whomever and wherever it should go. If He's prompting you to send it on, let it wing its way. He promises that His Word shall not return void .. Hallelujah!
10
posted on
12/30/2003 10:34:39 AM PST
by
Pegita
('Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His Word ...)
To: txrangerette; wisconsinconservative; Pegita; floriduh voter; cyn; JulieRNR21; Ragtime Cowgirl
That is still being appealed...pray they allow the depositions. And keep emailing!
Thank you for the prayers, Pegita. I'm misty eyed again.
11
posted on
12/30/2003 11:01:48 AM PST
by
msmagoo
To: Pegita
Thank you for both the prayer and the words of wisdom, Pegita.
Gladly passing them on.
A few helpful e-mail addresses, in case anyone else is interested:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
E-mail Judge W. Douglas Baird: Sixth Circuit Court: courts@jud6.orgPhone: " " : (727) 464-3232
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
More of Terri's defenders:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Local Florida press:
12
posted on
12/30/2003 1:23:41 PM PST
by
Ragtime Cowgirl
( "Our military is full of the finest people on the face of the earth." ~ Pres. Bush, Baghdad)
To: wisconsinconservative
Baird, who previously has indicated he believes the action in behalf of Schiavo was unconstitutional, did not issue his decision immediately but said he will wait until an appeals court rules on three actions Bush has filed in the case.Another tyrannist who needs impeaching, he has decided the case before the case started and witnesses and testimony are pointless to an all knowing god.
13
posted on
12/30/2003 1:26:43 PM PST
by
jwalsh07
To: txrangerette
I know it's on appeal, but others
are suggesting the FL Supremes
will be the dead-end. If Jeb"s
rights are ignored(we know Terri's
are, but on a more complex point
of state law - Jeb's are ON THE
FACE OF IT), why wouldn't his due
process rights fall under federal
constitutional law?
To: Pegita
Amen
15
posted on
12/31/2003 2:33:04 AM PST
by
fiesti
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
I wonder if Terri and the Schindler's had a nice Christmas. (How could they?) And what will 2004 bring - death and destruction OR life and freedom?! Let's keep praying!! Go, Terri!!
16
posted on
12/31/2003 12:57:12 PM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Ragtime Cowgirl
Thanks for all the email addresses! Go, Terri!!
17
posted on
01/02/2004 5:27:50 AM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: wisconsinconservative
Found this on the web. The slippery slope:
ACLU-NC Supports Man's Right to
End Life Support
by Jenesse Miller
On October 10, the ACLU-NC filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court supporting Robert Wendland, a man on life-support, who had previously asserted his desire not to be sustained artificially by medical technology.
Robert suffered a catastrophic automobile accident in 1993, which left him in a prolonged coma. He emerged from the coma in 1995, but has remained in a minimally conscious state, from which he will not improve, from which he will not improve, unable to communicate and sustained by artificial feeding tubes. After three operations to surgically reinsert the tubes after Robert pulled them out, his wife Rose Wendland declined to give consent to a fourth surgery. She stated that Robert told her that he would never wish a prolonged existence on medical technology if her suffered a major accident.
Acting as the conservator of her husband, Robert, Rose Wendland is seeking to honor her husband's wishes in withdrawing artificial nutrition and hydration. Robert Wendland's mother and sister successfully challenged the this action in the trial court. The Court of Appeal reversed. The case, Wendland v. Wendland, is now before the California Supreme Court, and presents the court with an opportunity for a major constitutional decision on the right to die.
"This case is about the constitutional right to privacy," said ACLU-NC staff attorney Margaret Crosby. "California's right to privacy expressly protects two important freedoms: autonomy in important decisions and control of information. The right to make choices at the end of life has its roots in both of these."
The ACLU argues that California's revised Probate Code directs conservators to implement the wishes of incompetent patients whenever possible. "Robert's current inability to articulate his treatment preferences does not negate his constitutional right to privacy," explained Crosby. "The California Legislature has made it possible for a conservator to carry out the private end-of-life decisions of a loved one who is unable to personally convey those wishes."
Although Robert Wendland's mother and sister argued that Robert never officially recorded a desire to forgo life-sustaining treatment prior to the tragic accident that left him unable to further articulate his treatment preferences, the ACLU-NC brief cites national surveys that most people, although they think about and discuss these issues, never put those requests into writing. "Imposing such a high evidentiary burden would impede many genuine treatment desires, thereby blocking a patient's constitutionally protected choice," said Crosby.
Robert's condition does not exactly mirror that of others who have won the right to terminate artificial life support: those in persistent vegetative states and those who are competent and can voice their decision. However, the ACLU argues that he still has the right to have his treatment wishes honored. Crosby pointed out that because minimally conscious patients like Robert can experience pain, suffering and feelings of humiliation, they may have even more at stake than those in vegetative states in having their directives respected.
"The ACLU recognizes the state's interest in enacting safeguards to ensure that end-of-life choices reflect authentic wishes of the patient. But the state may not require an individual to endure a biological existence he has made clear he would find unbearable, simply to promote an abstract interest in preserving life," said Crosby. "The key question we must ask ourselves is: is Robert Wendland a participant in his treatment, or a prisoner of technology?"
Crosby noted several safeguards that have been enacted in California to protect potentially vulnerable patients, including procedures for appointing and challenging a conservator, who must set aside personal beliefs, act as a true surrogate, seek medical advice, and involve several experts who play a role in any decision to terminate care. In Robert Wendland's case, his treating physician, a hospital ethics committee, and an ombudsman unanimously supported Rose's decision to honor her husband's wishes not to artificially prolong his existence.
"Essentially this case is about the fundamental right to privacy, and the right to control one's own body -- to make private choices about how we will die, just as we make private decisions about how we will live," concluded Crosby.
American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California
1663 Mission Street, Suite 460, San Francisco, CA 94103
(415) 621-2493
18
posted on
01/02/2004 12:28:11 PM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: wisconsinconservative; sweetliberty
Any news?
19
posted on
01/06/2004 1:59:01 PM PST
by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
To: Saundra Duffy; sweetliberty
20
posted on
01/06/2004 3:23:08 PM PST
by
wisconsinconservative
("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson