Replies

Many of these individuals are leading activists in the right-to-die movement. They are exploiting Terri Schiavo in hopes of advancing their agenda. If Michael Schiavo and George Felos succeed in starving Terri to death, a legal precedent will have been set that will give guardians far greater leeway to order the starvation and dehydration of their wards.

I don't think this is true and as I recall, neither did Wesley Smith, an attorney who specializes in this stuff.

What is true is the opposite. Should the Schindlers manage to keep Terri from being killed, a legal precedent will have been set that sets them back terribly in their quest.

In 1976, with Karen Ann Quinlan, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that a patient lacking the ability may express his or her right to die through a surrogate.

In 1986, Florida, case of Helen Corbett, a Court of Appeals ruled that a 3rd party could refuse food and water on behalf of someone.

human life of washington

We're all about 20 years behind on this one, imo.

Someone said something earlier in the thread about Felos "judge shopping"....

this excerpt says the decision is only applicable in the district it was issued....also I read that "the right to privacy is what allows feeding to be withheld", now how in the world did that happen?

Court Cases
Florida
Case Corbett v. Alessandro, 487 So. 2d 368 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.), review denied, 492 So. 2d 1331 (Fla. 1986).
Court Florida District Court of Appeal, 2d District
Year 1986
Patient (age) Helen Corbett (73)
Nutrition + hydration Nasogastric tube
Mental capacity Persistent Vegetative State (PVS)
Decision maker(s) Husband
Setting settng
Patient's Wishes Mrs. Corbett's husband of 45 years claimed that she would not want to be sustained by tube feeding in her present condition.
Court's Decision

The court found that patients have a right to refuse medical treatment based on the right to privacy found in both the Florida Constitution (Article I, section 23) and the U.S. Constitution. The court specifically found that artificial feeding fell into the category of "extraordinary treatment" that could be withheld or withdrawn, without limitation by the legislature. The court also found that patient's like Corbett (in a PVS, with no reasonable prospect of regaining cognitive brain function) may have their right to refuse treatment put into effect by a third party (in this case, her husband).

Note: Although this ruling is binding only in Florida's Second Appellate District (central Gulf Coast: Lakeland - Tampa), the fact that the Florida Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal suggests that the precedent will hold, statewide.
Outcome Mrs. Corbett died while her case was before the courts.
Citation Partnership for Caring, Inc. (2001), Fact Sheet, Corbett v. Alessandro.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:eFuyjPNyp4gJ:www.dickinson.edu/endoflife/LawFL.html+1986,+Florida,+case+of+Helen+Corbett+&hl=en

MM, this came up about 2 weeks ago. I read the links you gave on precedent setting cases, but failed to say anything about it. I'm going to have to give a mixed answer.

First, I agree that the precedent to allow euthanasia to exist was set a long time ago. Also, that because of those precedents, it has become a frequent, ongoing occurrence. What has been changing steadily are the conditions under which it is allowed.

Often when the courts are used to press an agenda towards a final goal, it's done in increments. Each case sets a precedent, building on previous precedents. Eventually the precedents pile up, every point of the agenda is granted, and the goal is reached. Then, it's codified into law by the legislative branch.

This can be good - example: the long series of cases that advanced the agenda to end Jim Crow laws and racial discrimination. After enough laws had been struck by courts and enough precedents had accumulated, the laws had to be reworked. The result was civil rights legislation.

Then, there's euthanasia. In one of those articles was a comment explaining that with a certain case, every precedent had been set except one to allow involuntary euthanasia.

Forced euthanasia - decided on by courts and doctors (or those they delegate), rather than patients and family - is the goal. Terri's case wouldn't quite set that precedent, but it would be a lot closer. Consider how many people Greer et al have ruled as having no authority in this matter. Not just the family, but also eyewitnesses, medical experts, the legislative branch, the governor, and even law enforcement! (DCF). If those rulings are allowed to stand, some big potential obstacles to the euthanasia agenda are eliminated. That, as much as anything else, is how this case would benefit the euthanasia crowd. And I'm sure they're very aware of it.