TERRI SCHINDLER SCHIAVO FEBRUARY DAILY THREAD 2005: TERRI IS OUR VALENTINE!

*Michael, HAVE A HEART !!!!!For Valentines Day give Terri back to her MOM & DAD, The Schindlers!!!!!!!!*

The Terri Schindler Schiavo Daily Threads are created month to month as we watch local and national news regarding Terri and her family.

Since Terri's supporters are in every time zone, you may see something FIRST. Please share news with us that you don't see here already. Now, why would you want to do that? Terri's Daily Thread for September/October of 2004 was viewed over 15,000 times. Terri's November Daily Thread was viewed over 6,000 times. December's thread is over 3,000 views. January 2005 Daily Thread was a RECORD HIGH!!!!!!! 15, 103 VIEWS!!!!!!

More and more good folks are finding out about Terri and that judicial tyranny would take her life, but for lots and lots of prayer and non-stop lobbying of relatives, friends, clergy, our leaders, the media, a passerby, a cashier - ANYONE who you feel comfortable chatting with.

Folks always want to know how can this be in America or on earth for that matter? Unfortunately, this is really happening to an innocent woman who just celebrated her 41st birthday. She's not the only one but she's the one with devoted parents and siblings who knows what's in Terri's heart. Terri has a strong will to live. That's apparent. It's been 14 years.

Besides, feeding tubes have been around practically since the Civil War. They are not high tech devices. Terri is "not hooked up to machines". Her feeding tube is the diameter of a piece of spaghetti.

Talkin' about Terri is the best way to lobby for her. It is a salespitch to save her life and subsequently, many lives. If you've never sold anything in your life, START NOW. START WITH TERRI.

See Terri's flash movies if you need more information. You can see for yourself that's she's interactive and follows the doctor's instructions.

NOTE: Terri's December Dailies are noted as a source above. There are lots of important links at the very top of that thread. If you missed Terri's Celebration of Life, you can click on it from there.

AGAIN WE HAVE A NEW RECORD: 15,103 views on the tote board for the Terri Schindler Schiavo January Daily Thread!

The most significant event in Terri's case in January, was the Supreme's Courts refusal to hear Governor Jeb Bush's appeal, after the Florida State Legislature struck down Terri's Law. This once again places Terri's life in extreme jeopardy, though there are other issues regarding her case before the court.

I came across a link from one of Terri's supporters, and can't remember which one, or where I found the link. But after following it, and clicking on other links there, and eventually getting totally lost in cyberspace, I came across this interesting article. There's a lot of good stuff on that page, but scroll down to see the following.

http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/fctwww.htm

Tube Feeding: Neither New Nor Rare

In fact, food and water have been provided by means of gastrostomy tube for over 100 years 70 and, according to a government report, at least 848,100 people per year receive food by means of a tube in hospitals, nursing homes or in their own homes. 71 A gastrostomy tube, inserted through the abdominal wall directly into the stomach, is a simple surgical procedure that can be performed under local anesthesia. Once inserted, the small incision heals and its presence causes essentially no discomfort to the majority of people. 72 Yet, in the debate over food and fluids, this simple procedure has been described as one which is highly invasive and highly risky.
The 1984 case of Mary Hier 73 illustrates how the classification of tube feeding as a "medical treatment" can to be used when the intent was to withhold food and fluids.
Ninety-two-year-old Mary Hier had lived in a state hospital for more that fifty- seven years. Elderly and demented, she thought she was the Queen of England. She was not terminally ill. Because of a Zenkers diverticulum in Mr. Hier's pharyngeal esophagus made it almost impossible for adequate food and fluids to pass down her esophagus to her stomach, she had received food by means of a gastrostomy tube for many years. When, in an unexplained incident, Ms. Hier's gastrostomy tube became dislodged, the care facility sought to replace the tube.
Although her guardian ad litem argued that nutrition should be differentiated from treatment, the Court declared, "We do not agree that such a distinction should be drawn as a matter of law." 74 The Court noted that the 1983 President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine had taken the position that "artificial feeding" should be thought of as a "treatment" decision. 75 Additionally the Court found that replacing Ms. Hier's gastrostomy tube would entail a "major medical procedure" that was "highly intrusive" and entailed a "relatively high risk to the patient due to her age." 76 Permission to replace the tube was denied.
Mary Hier's story and her life might have ended there had it not been for the fact that, just as her case was being reported, another story appeared in the same newspaper. It concerned a ninety-four-year-old woman who was doing well following "minor surgery to correct a nutritional problem." The surgery had been performed on an outpatient basis under local anesthesia. The woman's name was Rose Kennedy and the "minor surgery to correct a nutritional problem" was insertion of a gastrostomy tube. 77 For ninety-four-year old Rose Kennedy, matriarch of a rich and powerful family, tube feeding was a mere correction of a nutritional problem. For ninety-two-year-old Mary Hier, poor and mentally ill, it was termed "medical treatment" that was too invasive and risky for a woman of her age.
Last minute intervention by a local physician and an attorney did eventually lead to Mary Hier' s tube feeding being provided again, and both Mary Hier and Rose Kennedy lived for many additional years.
The choice of words to describe the method of providing food and fluids, as illustrated in the case of Mary Hier, depends upon whether the discussion is intended to lead to their being provided or withheld. Manipulative terminology, using the language of treatment rather than care, has also been used to describe not only the tube but also the food itself. For example, referring to food received by tube as "artificially implanted nutrition and hydration" 78 seemed a patent attempt to create the illusion that food and fluids themselves are exotic medical treatment. Yet it seems doubtful that those who contend that food and fluids become "treatment" if taken by tube would tolerate others calling penicillin or milk of magnesia "food" when taken by mouth.
Lunch Trays Bearing Treatment

This is just a portion of the chapter which includes the info you were looking for (I think)

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0765/ch0765.htm765.102 Legislative findings and intent.--

(1) The Legislature finds that every competent adult has the fundamental right of self-determination regarding decisions pertaining to his or her own health, including the right to choose or refuse medical treatment. This right is subject to certain interests of society, such as the protection of human life and the preservation of ethical standards in the medical profession.

(2) To ensure that such right is not lost or diminished by virtue of later physical or mental incapacity, the Legislature intends that a procedure be established to allow a person to plan for incapacity by executing a document or orally designating another person to direct the course of his or her medical treatment upon his or her incapacity. Such procedure should be less expensive and less restrictive than guardianship and permit a previously incapacitated person to exercise his or her full right to make health care decisions as soon as the capacity to make such decisions has been regained.

(3) The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.

765.105 Review of surrogate or proxy's decision.--The patient's family, the health care facility, or the attending physician, or any other interested person who may reasonably be expected to be directly affected by the surrogate or proxy's decision concerning any health care decision may seek expedited judicial intervention pursuant to rule 5.900 of the Florida Probate Rules, if that person believes:

(1) The surrogate or proxy's decision is not in accord with the patient's known desires or the provisions of this chapter;

(2) The advance directive is ambiguous, or the patient has changed his or her mind after execution of the advance directive;

(3) The surrogate or proxy was improperly designated or appointed, or the designation of the surrogate is no longer effective or has been revoked;

(4) The surrogate or proxy has failed to discharge duties, or incapacity or illness renders the surrogate or proxy incapable of discharging duties;

(5) The surrogate or proxy has abused powers; or

(6) The patient has sufficient capacity to make his or her own health care decisions.

765.107 Construction.--
(2) Procedures provided in this chapter permitting the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures do not apply to a person who never had capacity to designate a health care surrogate or execute a living will.

765.1115 Falsification, forgery, or willful concealment, cancellation, or destruction of directive or revocation or amendment; penalties.--

(2) Any person who falsifies or forges the advance directive of another or who willfully conceals or withholds personal knowledge of the revocation of an advance directive, with the intent to cause a withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures contrary to the wishes of the principal, and who thereby because of such act directly causes life-prolonging procedures to be withheld or withdrawn and death to be hastened, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

765.113 Restrictions on providing consent.--Unless the principal expressly delegates such authority to the surrogate in writing, or a surrogate or proxy has sought and received court approval pursuant to rule 5.900 of the Florida Probate Rules, a surrogate or proxy may not provide consent for:
(1) Abortion, sterilization, electroshock therapy, psychosurgery, experimental treatments that have not been approved by a federally approved institutional review board in accordance with 45 C.F.R. part 46 or 21 C.F.R. part 56, or voluntary admission to a mental health facility.

PART III

LIFE-PROLONGING PROCEDURES

765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--

(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures.

(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be satisfied that:

(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the right could be exercised by the patient.

(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the patient's physical condition is terminal.

History.--s. 4, ch. 92-199; s. 28, ch. 99-331; s. 13, ch. 2000-295.

765.306 Determination of patient condition.--In determining whether the patient has a terminal condition, has an end-stage condition, or is in a persistent vegetative state or may recover capacity, or whether a medical condition or limitation referred to in an advance directive exists, the patient's attending or treating physician and at least one other consulting physician must separately examine the patient. The findings of each such examination must be documented in the patient's medical record and signed by each examining physician before life-prolonging procedures may be withheld or withdrawn.

History.--s. 4, ch. 92-199; s. 13, ch. 94-183; s. 29, ch. 99-331; s. 14, ch. 2000-295.

765.309 Mercy killing or euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.--

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the natural process of dying.

(2) The withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.

History.--s. 4, ch. 92-199.

PART IV

ABSENCE OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

765.401 The proxy.

765.404 Persistent vegetative state.

765.401 The proxy.--

(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:

(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;

(b) The patient's spouse;

(c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;

(d) A parent of the patient;

(e) The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation;

(f) An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patient's activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or

(g) A close friend of the patient.

(h) A clinical social worker licensed pursuant to chapter 491, or who is a graduate of a court-approved guardianship program. Such a proxy must be selected by the provider's bioethics committee and must not be employed by the provider. If the provider does not have a bioethics committee, then such a proxy may be chosen through an arrangement with the bioethics committee of another provider. The proxy will be notified that, upon request, the provider shall make available a second physician, not involved in the patient's care to assist the proxy in evaluating treatment. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures will be reviewed by the facility's bioethics committee. Documentation of efforts to locate proxies from prior classes must be recorded in the patient record.

(2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxy's informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.

(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the designation of persons who may consent to the medical care or treatment of minors established pursuant to s. 743.0645.

History.--s. 5, ch. 92-199; s. 12, ch. 94-183; s. 32, ch. 99-331; s. 15, ch. 2000-295; s. 7, ch. 2001-250; s. 136, ch. 2001-277; s. 13, ch. 2002-195; s. 5, ch. 2003-57.

765.404 Persistent vegetative state.--For persons in a persistent vegetative state, as determined by the attending physician in accordance with currently accepted medical standards, who have no advance directive and for whom there is no evidence indicating what the person would have wanted under such conditions, and for whom, after a reasonably diligent inquiry, no family or friends are available or willing to serve as a proxy to make health care decisions for them, life-prolonging procedures may be withheld or withdrawn under the following conditions:

(1) The person has a judicially appointed guardian representing his or her best interest with authority to consent to medical treatment; and

(2) The guardian and the person's attending physician, in consultation with the medical ethics committee of the facility where the patient is located, conclude that the condition is permanent and that there is no reasonable medical probability for recovery and that withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging procedures is in the best interest of the patient. If there is no medical ethics committee at the facility, the facility must have an arrangement with the medical ethics committee of another facility or with a community-based ethics committee approved by the Florida Bio-ethics Network. The ethics committee shall review the case with the guardian, in consultation with the person's attending physician, to determine whether the condition is permanent and there is no reasonable medical probability for recovery. The individual committee members and the facility associated with an ethics committee shall not be held liable in any civil action related to the performance of any duties required in this subsection.

History.--s. 33, ch. 99-331.

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.