Florida Failed to Defend the Life of Terri Schiavo

ROME/TALLAHASSEE, Florida, SEPT. 24, 2004 (Zenit.org).- A bioethicist expressed his concern over the failure of the Florida State Supreme Court to defend the life of Terri Schiavo in face of her husband's insistence that she be allowed to die.

The Court ruled on Thursday that the "Terri Law", signed by Florida's Governor Jeb Bush, is unconstitutional and that the governor should not have been given the power to have the feeding tube reinserted, against the wishes of the brain-damaged woman's husband. Terri Shiavo has been unconscious for the past 14 years.

The Court heard the appeal of Michael Schiavo, the patient's husband, and ruled that the law, approved by the Florida State Legislature and in force for only 15 days, is unconstitutional.

The seven judges of the State Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the "Terri Law," promulgated in October of 2003, violated the separation of the powers between the judicial, legislative and executive branch, and that the Florida Legislature improperly delegated power to the governor.

"We recognize that the tragic circumstances underlying this case make it difficult to put emotions aside and focus solely on the legal issue presented," wrote Chief Justice Barbara Pariente, who authored the opinion.

"We are not insensitive to the struggle that all members of Theresa's family have endured since she fell unconscious in 1990. However, we are a nation of laws and we must govern our decisions by the rule of law and not by our own emotions," she continued.

"Our hearts can fully comprehend the grief so fully demonstrated by Theresa's family members on this record," the ruling said. "But our hearts are not the law. What is in the Constitution always must prevail over emotions. Our oaths as judges require that this principle is our polestar, and it alone."

Terri Schiavo, 40, suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped due to an eating problem. Although she can breathe on her own, she needs a feeding tube to survive. Her husband argues that she would not have wished to be kept alive in this way and wants the tube to be removed and that she be allowed to die.

However, the patient's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, rejected the proposal and alleged that their daughter might recover her faculties.

“I cannot go into the technical aspects of the ruling. I don't know if it is correct from the strictly technical-juridical point of view. However, it is very sad and worrying that a defenseless person's death can be caused by a technical problem and that the juridical system is unable to protect Terri Schiavo's life," said Father Gonzalo Miranda, dean of the Faculty of Bioethics of Rome's Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum.

"Assuming that the ruling is technically correct, I think that the position presented by Judge Barbara Pariente, is gravely inexact: the problem does not lie in choosing between 'emotions and rules,' but between defense of a human life and the rules," the Legionary of Christ said in statements to ZENIT.

"Obviously the written rules cannot address each and all of the concrete cases that can arise. Interpretation of the rules not only is necessary but inevitable," added the expert, who has represented the Catholic Church in questions of bioethics at UNESCO.

"And, in the case of a serious emergency, as was Mrs. Schiavo's situation when 'Terri's Law' was promulgated, one would have to be able to interpret and apply the rules in favor of the protection of life, perhaps with an all together exceptional and temporal legal measure (so that it could not be used abusively as a precedent to alter the established juridical and constitutional order)."

"When an emergency arises and the written rules are not adequate to protect someone who is in danger of death, are we not able to adapt the rules or interpret them keeping the special situation in mind, or to make an exception for the good of the person?" Father Miranda asked.

"What will happen when a terrorist threatens someone's life and the rules do not allow his arrest?" he continued.

“I am assailed by a suspicion: the sad Schiavo case has been extended for a very long time, without the lawmakers and judges being able to definitively guarantee the protection of life."

"Might it not be the case, in fact, that some would prefer to see her dead?" he asked.

"King Solomon knew who the real mother of the child was when he saw that one of the women accepted his being cut in half, while the mother cried out that she preferred that he be given alive to the other woman," Father Miranda added.

"Terri's husband pursues obsessively his wife's death (alleging, naturally, that he does so out of compassion for her). Terry's parents are fighting to save her life. If only our judges would learn something of the wisdom of Solomon," he concluded.

FLORIDA LEGISLATORS CAN STILL ACT TO SAVE TERRI SCHINDLER-SCHIAVO

Today’s Florida Supreme Court decision striking down “Terri’s Law” under which Governor Jeb Bush had ordered that she not be starved and dehydrated to death is not necessarily the last word. Although the court struck the protective law down because it overruled the judiciary in one particular case, the way is still open to pass a law that would be generally applicable to people with disabilities, including Terri Schindler-Schiavo.

Currently, the state requires that someone present Florida courts with “clear and convincing evidence” showing that the patient wanted to be denied food and fluids. In the Schiavo case, Terri went six days without food and fluids because the judge ruled that an alleged casual comment fulfilled the clear and convincing evidence standard. A bill introduced earlier this year, the Florida Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Act, would mandate that a decision to put someone to death by starvation or dehydration could only occur if the patient had made the statement under express and informed consent. It is carefully written to be “constitutional” under prior decisions of the Florida Supreme Court.

Concerned Florida citizens are urged to click on http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/officials/state/?state=FL&lvl=L to contact Florida representatives and senators to urge them to commit to support, in a special session if necessary, enactment of the Florida Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Prevention Act, similar to last year’s S.B. 692, to save Terri Schindler-Schiavo and others like her.

IF YOU ARE NOT A FLORIDA RESIDENT, you may wish to contact:

Senate President James King, Jr.
9485 Regency Square Blvd., Suite 108
Jacksonville, FL 32225-8145
Email: king.james.web@leg.state.fl.us
(904) 727-3600
Fax: (904) 727-3603

This statement may be attributed to Burke J. Balch, J.D., Director of National Right to Life Committee’s Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics.

See Questions and Answers on Florida Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Act

See text of Florida Starvation and Dehydration of Persons with Disabilities Act

See Wesley Smith column on why informed consent to denial of nutrition and hydration should be required: The Consequences of Casual Conversations

Florida Supreme Court opinion striking down "Terri's Law"

Supreme ignorance

By David N. Bass, World Net Daily

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=40619

September 25, 2004

The so-called "right-to-die" movement was handed another victory this week when the Florida Supreme Court struck down a law designed to prevent the starvation death of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman who has been the latest target in the left's crusade against the elderly and disabled.

The ruling by the Florida high court is the most recent episode in a six-year legal struggle by Terri's estranged husband, Michael Schiavo, to end her life. Mr. Schiavo contends that Terri is in a "persistent vegetative state" and therefore should be condemned to a starvation death by having her feeding tube removed, even though her condition does not meet the medical or statutory definition of "persistent vegetative state." To the contrary, she responds to communication, recognizes her family, receives no life support or respiration and is considered physically stable.

But apparently, the seven justices of the Florida Supreme Court couldn't care less. On Thursday, the court unanimously declared "Terri's Law" unconstitutional, claiming it violates the separation of powers and encroaches on the authority of the judiciary.

Passed by the Florida Legislature in October of 2003, "Terri's Law" granted Gov. Jeb Bush the authority to counter a court order by Judge George Greer to remove Terri's feeding tube. Clearly, the measure was designed to both protect Terri Schiavo's life and provide a "check" on a court run amuck – both actions supported and even required by the Constitution.

But not according to Chief Justice Barbara J. Pariente, who displayed an alarming ignorance of both history and constitutional law in the Court's written opinion. In it she writes, "The continuing vitality of our system of separation of powers precludes the other two branches from nullifying the judicial branch's final orders." Doing so would lead to the judiciary's subordination "to the final directive of the other branches."

The judiciary has hung its hat on bizarre reasoning before, but this ruling really takes the cake. In the view of Chief Justice Pariente, the judiciary should be considered "untouchable" by the other two branches of government. The courts can nullify or rewrite the laws passed by the legislative branch to suit a certain agenda, and it's perfectly fine. But if the Florida Legislature takes action to halt a court ruling decreeing the starvation death of an entirely innocent woman, that's a flagrant violation of the separation of powers.

So much for consistency in the courts.

Unfortunately, Pariente doesn't stop there. She goes on to warn that if the judiciary is subordinated to the other branches, the rights of every American citizen will also be subordinated, "including the well-established privacy right to self determination."

Apparently, elected members of the Legislature are all boogeymen out to strip away our rights, but un-elected judges and justices have nothing but benevolence in their hearts for freedom and the American way. I think Terri Schiavo and the Schindler family would disagree.

The chief justice continues by saying that if restraints are placed on the judiciary, "the essential core of what the Founding Fathers sought to change from their experience with English rule would be lost, especially their belief that our courts exist precisely to preserve the rights of individuals, even when doing so is contrary to popular will."

Such statements are fine and dandy as long as you're ignoring both history and facts. Chief Justice Pariente would have us believe that the Founding Fathers possessed a deep abiding trust in the judicial system, but that's simply not the case. The Framers specifically designed the judiciary to be the weakest of the three branches of government, not the strongest. The only reason the judiciary carries so much clout today is due to recent actions by activist judges to reshape our courts into something they were never meant to be.

Instead of praising the Florida Supreme Court's ruling, the Founding Fathers would be horrified by what is transpiring today. Not only because it virtually spits on the sacred American institution of checks and balances, but also because it shows absolutely no regard for the life of an innocent woman. Pariente continually references individual rights in the court's opinion, but she apparently has little concern for the individual rights of Terri Schiavo. She is more concerned with idealism than with the sacred life of a fellow human being. Perhaps that is the most troubling aspect of the court's ruling.

The Florida Supreme Court has made its decision, but the battle to preserve Terri's life is far from over. The so-called "right-to-die" crowd is fighting furiously to set a precedent in this case, a precedent that will be the basis for outright legalization of euthanasia on demand. It's up to life-honoring Americans who have already seen abortion's devastating effect on our culture to ensure that this week's ruling by the Florida Supreme Court does not lead us into another American holocaust, a holocaust of euthanasia.

David N. Bass is an 18-year-old homeschool graduate who writes for World Newspaper Publishing and is a regular columnist at AmericanDaily.com, ARationalAdvocate.com and RenewAmerica.us. He is also a contributing writer to many other online sites, including Tolkien-Movies.com. Bass is currently working on his first novel.

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.