Terri Schiavo's Parents Will Ask Appeals Court to Rehear Case

Clearwater, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Attorneys for Terri Schiavo's parents will ask a Florida appeals court to rehear their case contending that starving Terri to death would violate her First Amendment religious liberties.

On Wednesday, without any written opinion explaining their decision, the Florida Second District Court of Appeal denied a request for a new trial on the basis that euthanizing Terri would violate her Catholic beliefs.

However, Schindler attorney David Gibbs III said he will ask the appeals court to rehear the case, especially since it did not authorize any trial or oral arguments. Gibbs says the court's decision not to hold hearings was disappointing.

Meanwhile, George Felos, the euthanasia advocate who is the lead attorney for Terri's estranged husband Michael, says that nothing prevents Michael from removing Terri's feeding tube once the Appeals Court's decision is finalized in mid-January.

"We don't believe it's necessary to obtain any further court orders'' to remove the feeding tube, Felos told the Tampa Tribune newspaper.

"I would certainly hope this is an indication we are heading toward finality in this case," Felos added.

Because the appeals court did not issue a written opinion, the decision cannot be appealed to the Florida Supreme Court.

That means, the only hope Terri's parents have of preventing their daughter from being starved to death rests on the appeals court to rehear the case or the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Terri's Law, which allowed Florida Governor Jeb Bush to ask doctors to keep the gastric tube in place.

The Schindlers had hoped to convince the appeals court that killing Terri would violate her Catholic beliefs, because the Catholic church is strongly against euthanasia.

They cited recent statements by Pope John Paul II calling the removal of a feeding tube for disabled patients like Terri "euthanasia by omission."

"We believe that the Papal Declaration, issued in March of 2004, is new evidence that as a matter of law should require a new hearing into what Terri's wishes would be today, given her devout faith and her current inability to speak for herself," Gibbs explained.

"Although Terri is unable to speak, she is very alert and aware of her environment and interacts regularly with her parents through sounds, facial expressions, laughter, and other nonverbal communication," Gibbs added.

Terri is not in a coma or on artificial respiration nor does she require any other assistance to maintain her life beyond assisted feeding through a tube.

Doctors have confirmed that she has a good chance of improving her condition if she can obtain rehabilitation and proper medical care, which Michael has denied her for years.

Schiavo's Parents Lose New Trial Bid
By DAVID SOMMER dsommer@tampatrib.com
Dec 30, 2004

CLEARWATER - The U.S. Supreme Court may be the only hope left for Terri Schiavo's parents in their quest to keep her alive.

Without commenting, a state appeals court ruled that Bob and Mary Schindler are not entitled to a new trial over their daughter's fate based on statements made this year by Pope John Paul II.

Once the decision is finalized, which could happen in mid-January, there will be nothing to prevent Michael Schiavo from removing his brain-damaged wife's feeding tube over her family's objections, Schiavo's attorney said Wednesday.

``I would certainly hope this is an indication we are heading toward finality in this case,''George Felos said.

``We don't believe it's necessary to obtain any further court orders'' to remove the feeding tube, Felos added.

Schindler attorney David Gibbs III said he will ask the 2nd District Court of Appeal to reconsider Wednesday's ruling. Because there was no written opinion, the Schindlers are precluded from appealing to the Florida Supreme Court.

Gibbs said he was incredibly disappointed that the appeals court ruled without holding hearings ``in a case being watched by the whole world.''

Felos said his client did not ask to be heard on the appeal. That the appeals court ruled in his favor without hearing Schiavo's position ``shows how frivolous their [the Schindlers'] position was.''

Twice in recent years, Michael Schiavo has won court permission to remove the tube, only to be overruled.

Most recently, in October 2003, Gov. Jeb Bush intervened and ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding resumed based on quickly drafted legislation dubbed ``Terri's Law.''

In August, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Terri's Law is unconstitutional, in part because it allowed the governor to block a court ruling.

Now Bush has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to take the case. The high court is expected to announce its intentions in mid- to late January.

The original judge in the case issued a blanket stay on removing the feeding tube during the state court fight over whether a statement this year by Pope John Paul II affects the case. The pope said people in persistent vegetative states should be given nourishment.

To do otherwise would be a sin, the pope said. The Schindlers contend their daughter, who was raised Catholic, would never violate a papal decree.

After a January 2000 nonjury trial, Circuit Judge George Greer ruled Terri Schiavo made statements prior to her illness indicating she would not want to be kept alive with no hope of improvement.

Greer said medical evidence shows Terri Schiavo, 41, has been in a persistent vegetative state since suffering heart failure in 1990 at age 26.

Both of those findings repeatedly have been upheld by higher courts. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who acts as the portal to the high court for emergency appeals from the Southeast, once declined to block the feeding tube's removal.

Bush's attorney, Ken Connor, said the governor may ask Kennedy to stay any tube removal if the Schindlers cannot convince the state appeals court to reconsider.

Wednesday's appeals court ruling means the U.S. Supreme Court may be the Schindlers' last hope, Connor said.

What's so creepy about Felos is how he has so much compassion for an abstraction and none for real people. For by his terms, Terri is not a person any longer, so the compassion he claims to feel, and the benefit he wants to convey to Terri---death---are directed to the abstraction of "Terri that used to be." Whereas Felos would admit that Terri's family---the Schindlers---are living, sentient, non-vegetative persons, and yet for them he has no pity, and seeks energetically to cause them the worst possible grief.

Claiming to be trying to do "what Terri would want" while claiming she cannot want anything; ignoring the certainty of her family's agony, while claiming they have no rights and are acting in bad faith to try to keep Terri from being starved to death---this is more evil than most of us ever see in broad daylight.

Mark my words, if he succeeds, it will become a resounding legal precedent for a new holocaust.

While Felos and Mr. Schiavo might or might not be that way, I hope you don't feel that all right-to-die or voluntary euthanasia advocates are misguided in such a way. In fact, in my experience, they are some of the most compassionate people in the world--usually entering this fray only after they have firsthand experience with the horrors of our current system.

I can feel for the Schindlers, but I also believe that we have to be careful not to destroy the idea that a person's own wishes are primary (and a court procedure was used in an attempt to fairly determine what they would be, in Mrs. Schiavo's case), and that when a man and woman marry, the spouse takes priority over parents (for example, in Christianity--Genesis 2:24).

What this case does is highlight the need for us all to properly and carefully create living wills/advance directives of care, and--as a society and individuals--to understand and respect them.

GONDRING WROTE TO GRAYMATTER: "I can feel for the Schindlers, but I also believe that we have to be careful not to destroy the idea that a person's own wishes are primary (and a court procedure was used in an attempt to fairly determine what they would be, in Mrs. Schiavo's case), and that when a man and woman marry, the spouse takes priority over parents (for example, in Christianity--Genesis 2:24)."

I agree that "a person's own wishes are primary."

But it is Michael Schiavo's wish---NOT Terri's---to put Terri to death!!!

Terri had the opportunity 13 years ago, just like other then-healthy adults, to choose to make a provable, notarized, written declaration of her "alleged" wish to die---but she CHOSE NOT to make such a provable, notarized, written declaration to that effect.

Therefore, the Courts should err on the side of LIFE, NOT death, in such circumstances, rather than take the word of someone with such a high conflict of interest, including possibly trying to permanently cover up a botched, Scott Peterson/Walker Railey-type of attempted murder. (Check out http://www.wfn.org/1997/03/msg00025.html)

GONDRING ADDED: "What this case does is highlight the need for us all to properly and carefully create living wills/advance directives of care, and--as a society and individuals--to understand and respect them."

And NO ONE should be able to take the life of an INNOCENT, DEFENSELESS human being---particularly when they CHOSE NOT to file a provable, notarized, written declaration to the contrary!!!

GRAYMATTER WROTE TO NICKCARRAWAY: "Claiming to be trying to do "what Terri would want" while claiming she cannot want anything; ignoring the certainty of her family's agony, while claiming they have no rights and are acting in bad faith to try to keep Terri from being starved to death---this is more evil than most of us ever see in broad daylight."

GRAYMATTER ADDED: "Mark my words, if he succeeds, it will become a resounding legal precedent for a new holocaust."

"what Terri would want?"

Since Terri CHOSE NOT to file a provable, notarized, written declaration that she did want to have feedings removed, then we MUST trust that SHE---NOT Felos or Michael Schiavo---KNEW what she wanted, and it WASN'T removal of her food and water!

What someone DOES want and what someone else IMAGINES the other person "would" want, are often two different things---especially when the ones claiming to speak for that person have a strong conflict of interest.

GRAYMATTER WROTE TO ME: "Thank you for the rebuttal! I figure anyone who isn't on Terri's side by now, doesn't care for the facts or for her life. So I don't respond. Besides, you said it better than I would have."

Thanks and you are welcome. I just stated what many people don't seem to see. Michael and Felos are speaking for what THEY DO want, NOT for what TERRI DID want.

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.