Save Terri Schiavo

Gov. Jeb Bush and the Florida legislature may not know it, but they acted in the spirit of Sir Philip Sidney when they tried to save the life of Terri Schiavo.

When Sidney, a young warrior and poet in the court of Queen Elizabeth I, was mortally wounded in battle, legend has it that he passed up a drink of water in deference to a common soldier who lay nearby in the throes of death.

After his own death, Sidney's body was brought back to England where he was given a state funeral and held up by his countrymen as a model of virtue to be emulated by all.

Today, Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, is trying to take an action that would reverse Sidney's. Rather than provide water to a stranger about to die, he wants to deny water to his own wife who persists in living. Since 1998, contrary to the wishes of Terri's parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, Michael Schiavo has been seeking to remove the nutrition-and-hydration tube that sustains Terri, who became mentally incapacitated 15 years ago when her heart temporarily stopped beating.

On Sept. 17, 2003, a Florida court authorized Schiavo to remove his wife's tube. On Oct. 15, 2003, the tube was removed and Terri began a slow death by dehydration. Six days after that, Gov. Bush signed a law enacted by the Florida legislature allowing him to issue a one-time stay of the court order that authorized the removal of Terri's nutrition-and-hydration tube.

This week, however, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to accept Bush's appeal of a Florida Supreme Court decision that overturned what became known as Terri's Law. Other litigation in the case will continue, but so far the courts have consistently sided in favor of starving and dehydrating Terri Schiavo.

The courts, however, are wrong, and the Florida legislature should not stop fighting them.

The disputants in Terri Schiavo's case disagree on her condition and prognosis. As noted in the petition Gov. Bush made to the Supreme Court, some say, "Terri Schiavo is not actually in a persistent vegetative state because she is able to interact with her visitors and caregivers."

But the key point is not disputed: Terri is unlikely to die soon unless deprived of food and water.

This is not a case about withholding desperate and disproportionate medical treatment from a patient who is destined to die of a terminal illness. Ironically, if Terri were certain to die of disease tomorrow the purpose of denying her water today would go away.

At its core, this case is about whether one person can make a judgment that another person's "quality" of life justifies taking that person's life. What is at stake for society here was explained in a brief presented to the Supreme Court by the Catholic Medical Association (Terri Schiavo is a Catholic), which cited a letter published last March by Pope John Paul II in which the Pope said it is wrong to withhold food and water even from someone believed to be in a persistent vegetative state. "However, it is not enough to reaffirm the general principle according to which the value of a man's life cannot be made subordinate to any judgment of its quality expressed by other men," the Pope said. "it is necessary to promote the taking of positive actions as a stand against pressures to withdraw hydration and nutrition as a way to put an end to the lives of these patients."

The principle the Pope defends is not new. It is the same principle President Bush defended when he addressed the March for Life via phone last Monday. "We know that in a culture that does not protect the most dependent," Bush said, "the handicapped, the elderly, the unloved, or simply inconvenient become increasingly vulnerable."

And it is the same principle that Sir Philip Sidney acted on when he sent his drink of water to a dying soldier. All human life is sacred because God made it so, and no man can change that.

Florida's legislature should not surrender this principle to the courts. Inspired by Terri Schiavo, it should enact a new law. This time it should simply say: You may not kill a person through starvation or dehydration. Terence Jeffrey is Editor of HUMAN EVENTS.

If you would like to send a comment to Mr. Jeffrey you can reach him by email at terencejeffrey@eaglepub.com

I still maintain that Terri has been denied fundamental constitutional guarantees: the right to the protection of a jury in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life, and, the right to be represented by counsel.

Florida’s Constitution states:

SECTION 9. Due process.--“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law…”

And what due process is guaranteed in a cases in which the state is called upon to deprive one of life, liberty or property?

SECTION 22. Trial by jury.--The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate.

The protection of a trial by jury was waived by Terri’s adulterous husband and her parents, and done so without her knowing or willing consent. So, unless one believes that Terri is nothing more than the property of either her adulterous husband or her parents, and they and not Terri are afforded the above mentioned constitutional protections intended to protect their “property”, from all those who would attempt to undermine rights associated with “property ownership, then I can understand why one would believe that Terri has no right to the protection of a jury, nor a right to be represented by legal counsel, as such thinking would be based upon the notion that the case is not about Terri’s rights, but about rights associated with property ownership which her parents and adulterous husband, the litigants, now fight over.

Unlike the starve Terri to death crowd, I see this case as a very important case, a case involving Terri’s rights, and not her adulterous husband’s rights nor her parents rights___ a case initiated because Terri left no written or oral end of life instructions, and the state was called upon, by Terri’s adulterous husband, to starve Terri to death.

And so, although our system is not perfect, it does provide a remedy when the state is called upon to end a person’s life. The wise framers of our constitution contemplated that when the state is called upon to exercise its power in the taking of life, the state acts in the name of the people. And because the state acts in the name of the people, our founding fathers provided a provision for the people to be part of the decision making process, especially when the state is called upon to end a person’s life. That process is called a jury, in which the commonsense judgment of the community is to be represented, and not the whims and fancies of a judge, [judge greer] who acted as a judge, jury, counsel and decision maker for Terri, and then arbitrarily concluding Terri wants to be starved to death and the power of the state ought to be used to end Terri’s life.

Although it would be a very difficult job to sit on such a jury, a jury which would be deciding what Terri wanted, if indeed there is evidence to conclude what she wanted, it is part of our legal process, it is all we have, and should be adhered to.

Unfortunately, Terri has been denied the protection of a jury, by two interested parties in the case who waived Terri’s right to the protection of a jury, and so, she has been denied the commonsense judgment of the community which was meant to be part of Terri’s due process of law in a case in which the state has been called upon to end her life.

"The purpose of a jury is to guard against the exercise of arbitrary power -- to make available the commonsense judgment of the community as a hedge against the over-zealous or mistaken prosecutor and in preference to the professional or perhaps overconditioned or biased response of a judge." See,Justice Byron White in in Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 US 522 , 530 (1975)

Also see: Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 106, (1895):

“The trial was thus conducted upon the theory that it was the duty of the court to expound the law, and that of the jury to apply the law as thus declared to the facts as ascertained by them. In this separation of the functions of court and jury is found the chief value, as well as safety, of the jury system. Those functions cannot be confounded or disregarded without endangering the stability of public justice, as well as the security of private and personal rights.”

The question is, can anyone produce case law in which the state has been called upon to exercise its power to end a person’s life, and that person was not represented in court by counsel, and likewise had their right to the protection of a jury waived by interested parties in the case and done so without the knowing and willing consent of the person the state has been called upon to put to death?

JWK

Ohioan:

As I recall, the appeal to the SCOTUS was not based upon the two fundamental arguments I have raised but merely eluded to them in the appeal, the two arguments being:

1. There is no provision in Florida’s Constitution which allows the right of a person to the protection of a jury to be waived without their knowing and willing consent in a case in which the power of the state is called upon to end that person’s life. The waiving of the right to protection of a jury in which the state is called upon to end a person’s life, without their knowing and willing consent, is a denial of due process of law and violates the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.

2. In addition, a person who’s life is asked to be taken by the power of the state is guaranteed the protection of being represented in court by counsel. The denial of this right, that is, without the person who’s life is at stake having not knowingly and willingly waiving that right, is likewise a denial of due process of law and violates the 14th Amendment.

As to case law in which the circumstances are the same as Terri’s, there is no case law, to the best of my knowledge covering the above legal arguments, and, without a ruling by the SCOTUS, the questions remain unanswered!

Finally, the above questions of law, have absolutely nothing to do with the emotionally charged arguments of whether or not Terri ought to be left to die or be afforded nutrition while in a comma, and such questions ought not be mentioned in an appeal to the SCOTUS to keep the basic arguments pure.

The question is, can the power of the state be called upon to end a person’s life without that person being represented by counsel, and not being afforded the protection of a jury, when they have not knowingly and willingly waived such rights. Can Terri’s right to the protection of a jury be waived by those involved in the case who have their own personal interests at stake?

The only case law I can find regarding the question of a jury trial remotely similar, was in In re Mabel Jones, 339 So.2d 1117 (1978). The basis of the decision was that there was (allegedly) no right to a jury trial in Florida when the state constitution was adopted and that the U.S. Supreme Court had not decided whether a jury trial is required under the U.S. Constitution. Aside from the fact that Florida’s original constitution (1838) does in fact provide under its declaration of rights the following wording: “Section 6. That the right of trial by jury shall forever remain inviolate, Justice Boyd filed a dissenting opinion as follows in the Mabel Jones case and is quite revealing:

“In my opinion, the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Florida contemplate that persons who are about to be denied their personal freedom by incarceration of any kind should have jury trials when they request them. ... I have difficulty in understanding why a person accused of violating the criminal statutes should be entitled to a jury trial when, at the same time, a person who is about to be involuntarily confined in an institution by the State should not…
It is well recognized that unsupported allegations of insanity can have a detrimental effect upon the personal lives and careers of people. It should not be left to the discretion of a single judge to make determinations of such allegations. Whenever insanity is used as a defense for crime, juries evaluate and determine the question and likewise, when requested, they should make determinations in civil commitment proceedings.
... persons accused of mental illness are sent away to institutions through the benevolence of the State without what I consider to be constitutional safeguards granted to the most vicious criminals. This is inherently unfair and a denial of Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.

I respectfully dissent. “,

The fact is, Terri’s case is even more of an issue than Mable’s case and suitable for the SCOTUS to hear and render a decision, as the decision of the Florida Court in Terri’s case is irreversible once it is carried out. In Mable’s case the court’s decision merely meant the loss of liberty for a limited time, and did so without the protection of a jury.

Finally, as to the argument that the right to the protection of a jury only applies in criminal cases, you may find the following Florida Supreme Court written opinion informative, which addresses the right to the protection of a jury:

SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA_____________ No. 79,396 _____________ B.J.Y., Petitioner/Appellant, vs. M.A., Respondent/Appellee. [April 29, 1993] OPINION: OVERTON, J.

Right to a Jury Trial

“The right to a jury trial is set forth in the Declaration of Rights of the Florida Constitution under article I, section 22, which states: "The right of trial by jury shall be secure to all and remain inviolate." A similar provision has been included in each of our constitutions, beginning with the Constitution of 1838, which became effective in 1845. In the 1838 Constitution, the trial by jury provision read as follows: "The right of trial by jury, shall for ever [sic] remain inviolate." Art. I, § 6, Fla. Const. (1838). In interpreting this provision, this Court has made it clear that the constitution secures to the citizens of this state the right to a jury trial in all types of proceedings in which a jury trial was a matter ofright before the adoption of the constitution. See Hunt v. City of Jacksonville, 34 Fla. 504, 16 So. 398 (1894). The question has also been addressed in the context of whether the right to a jury trial applies only to common law actions as they existed before the adoption of the constitution or to both common law and statutory actions as they existed at the time the constitution was adopted. In Hathorne v. Panama Park Co., 44 Fla. 194, 196, 32 So. 812, 813 (1902), this Court stated that our constitution guarantees to the citizens a right of trial by jury only in those cases where at the time of the adoption of the constitution, the law gave that right; and not in those cases where the right, and the remedy with it, are thereafter created by statute, nor where the cause was already the subject of equity jurisdiction. (Emphasis added.) In Kluger v. White, 281 So. 2d 1, 4 (Fla. 1973), we considered the abolishment of causes of action and stated that where a right of access to the courts for redress for a particular injury has been provided by statutory law predating the adoption of the Declaration of Rights of the Constitution of the State of Florida, or where such right has become a part of the common law of the State pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 2.01, F.S.A., the Legislature is without power to abolish such a right without providing a reasonable alternative to protect the rights of the people of the State to redress for injuries, unless the Legislature can show an overpowering public necessityfor the abolishment of such right, and no alternative method of meeting such public necessity can be shown. (Emphasis added.) In In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, 493 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 1986), this Court again explained that the rights secured included not only actions at common law but also statutory actions in which the right to a jury trial existed at the time the constitution was adopted. In that case we expressly stated: The constitutional right to a trial by jury is not to be narrowly construed. This right is not limited strictly to those specific proceedings in which it existed before the adoption of our constitution, but should be extended to proceedings of like nature as they may arise. Id. at 435 (citations omitted). Consequently, the issue of whether one is entitled to a jury trial in a paternity action turns on whether such a right existed by statute or under the common law in effect for "proceedings of like nature" at the time the Constitution of Florida was adopted . . . Accordingly, we approve the district court's finding that article I, section 22, of the Florida Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in paternity proceedings, and we declare unconstitutional the portion of section 742.031, Florida Statutes, that requires paternity proceedings to be tried only by the judge. This holding mandates the restoration of the portion of the statute providing for the right to a jury trial as it existed before the statute was amended in 1986. The remainder of the statute as amended in 1986 shall be unaffected. For the reasons expressed, we direct that this cause be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. It is so ordered.”

The Court also stated in the above mentioned case:

“When the case reaches that court it loses its criminal aspect, and is henceforth a civil action . . . . As we stated in In re Forfeiture of 1978 Chevrolet Van, the right to a jury trial "is not limited strictly to those specific proceedings in which it existed before the adoption of our constitution, but should be extended to proceedings of like nature as they may arise." 493 So. 2d at 435. Consequently, we find that article I, section 22, of the Florida Constitution preserves the right to a jury trial in paternity proceedings…”

I am convinced that if an appeal to the SCOTUS is based upon these narrow arguments, and challenges that a violation of due process of law has taken place in Florida which is forbidden by the 14th Amendment, the Court has no choice but to hear the case and make a ruling. Sincerely,
JWK

Updated:

Florida DOH Destroyed Records After Schiavo Doctor Cleared Of Wrongdoing
Following Investigation

http://www.theempirejournal.com/SCHIAVO_florida_DOH_destroyed_records_after.htm

Judge George Greer Making Mockery Of Florida Judicial System

http://www.theempirejournal.com/judge_greer_fraud_in_the_court.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1333205/posts?page=1#1

PLEASE DEMAND A GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION IN THE SCHIAVO CASE!!!!!!!

ALSO A REAL KEY, NEW TALKING POINT: Terri was NEVER represented by counsel while
others decided to starve her to death. That's against Florida and U.S. law. Even
criminals on death row are entitled to legal counsel. BILL TO THE FLOOR TO
PROTECT TERRI AND FUTURE TERRI's. A NEW Bill 692 please!

"If the courts continue to rule that the governor and the legislative branch
have no input, then perhaps Bush should take Terri Schiavo into protective
custody under Florida Statute 415.1051."

(2) EMERGENCY PROTECTIVE SERVICES INTERVENTION.--If the department has
reasonable cause to believe that a vulnerable adult is suffering from abuse or
neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury to the
vulnerable adult and that the vulnerable adult lacks the capacity to consent to
emergency protective services, the department may take action under this
subsection. If the vulnerable adult has the capacity to consent and refuses
consent to emergency protective services, emergency protective services may not
be provided.

No need to read Jeb's staff the section, but certainly, we can give them the
415.1051 and say it is in re: Emergency Protective Services Intervention.

A Governor has duties and powers. We must firmly but diplomatically ask Jeb Bush
to use them!

http://flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&U
RL=Ch0415/SEC1051.HTM&Title=-%3E2004-%3ECh0415-%3ESection%201051#0415.1051

Florida Attorney General's Charlie Crist, AG Citizen’s Services & Office
1-850-414-3990 / 850-414-3300

Bernie McCabe, State Attorney Pinellas and Pasco Counties
727-464-6221
bmccabe@co.pinellas.fl.us

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities 800-342-0823
850-488-9071
info@advocacycenter.org

Pinellas County GOP 727-539-6009

Gov. Jeb Bush 850-488-4441
jeb.bush@myflorida.com, fl_governor@myflorida.com,
jeb@jeb.org, jeb@myflorida.com

State of Florida Office of Civil Rights 954-712-4601

Senator Mel Martinez
Washington: Phone: 202-224-3041

Congressman Jim Davis
Washington: Phone: (202) 225-3376
FAX: (202) 225-565
DISTRICT: Phone: (813) 354-9217
Florida Toll Free: 1 (888) 266-0205
Fax: (813) 354-9514

Satellite Office: (727) 867-5301
FAX: (727) 867-5302

Florida Senate 800-342-1827
http://www.flsenate.gov/Legislators/index.cfm?Mode=Member%20Pages&Submenu=1&Tab=legislators

Senate President Tom Lee: 1-800-560-4403

Daniel Webster
Capitol Office: Phone: (850) 487-5047
District Office: (407) 656-0066

The Florida Senate-2004-2006 Senators

alexander.jd.web@flsenate.gov, argenziano.nancy.web@flsenate.gov,
aronberg.dave.web@flsenate.gov, atwater.jeff.web@flsenate.gov,
baker.carey.web@flsenate.gov, bennett.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
bullard.larcenia.web@flsenate.gov, campbell.walter.web@flsenate.gov,
carlton.lisa.web@flsenate.gov, clary.charlie.web@flsenate.gov,
constantine.lee.web@flsenate.gov, crist.victor.web@flsenate.gov,
dawson.mandy.web@flsenate.gov, portilla.alex.web@flsenate.gov,
dockery.paula.web@flsenate.gov, fasano.mike.web@flsenate.gov,
garcia.rudy.web@flsenate.gov, geller.steven.web@flsenate.gov,
haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov, hill.anthony.web@flsenate.gov,
jones.dennis.web@flsenate.gov, king.james.web@flsenate.gov,
klein.ron.web@flsenate.gov, lawson.alfred.web@flsenate.gov,
lee.tom.web@flsenate.gov, lynn.evelyn.web@flsenate.gov,
margolis.gwen.web@flsenate.gov, miller.lesley.web@flsenate.gov,
peaden.durell.web@flsenate.gov, posey.bill.web@flsenate.gov,
pruitt.ken.web@flsenate.gov, rich.nan.web.@flsenate.gov,
saunders.burt.web@flsenate.gov, sebesta.jim.web@flsenate.gov,
siplin.gary.web@flsenate.gov, smith.rod.web@flsenate.gov,
villalobos.alex.web@flsenate.gov, wilson.frederica.web@flsenate.gov,
daniel.webster.web@flsenate.gov

Florida House of Representatives 850-488-6026
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/legislators.aspx

Speaker Allan Bense
Capitol Office: Phone: (850) 488-1450
District Office: Phone: (850) 914-6300
speaker@myfloridahouse.gov

Frank Peterman
Capitol Office: Phone: (850) 488-0925
District Office: Phone: (727) 552-1370

Florida Department of Law Enforcement 850-410-7000

Florida Agency for Persons with Disabilities 850-488-4257

Federal Bureau of Investigation
202-324-3000
tampa@fbi.gov, jacksonville@fbi.gov

U.S. Department of Justice
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov
202-514-2000 Main Switchboard
202-353-1555 Office of US AG

U.S. DOJ Disability Civil Rights
Section Chief John L Wodatch
Phone: (202) 307-2227
Fax:(202) 307-1198
John.L.Wodatch@usdoj.gov

Section Deputy Chief Renee M Wohlenhaus
Phone: (202) 307-0663
Renee.Wohlenhaus@usdoj.gov

Philip Breen
Special Legal Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Phone: (202) 616-7526
Fax:(202) 307-1198
Philip.L.Breen@usdoj.gov

Liz Savage
U.S. Department of Justice
Phone:(202) 514-7173
Fax:(202) 514-0293
E-mail: liz.savage@usdoj.gov

PLEASE TAKE TIME TO MAKE SOME CALLS ON BEHALF OF TERRI!!!! THE CALL YOU MAKE MAY
BE THE ONE THAT SAVES HER LIFE!!!!

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.