March 18, 2005 Editorial
Accuracy, teaching should enlighten Schiavo case
http://www.thefloridacatholic.org/op-eds/2005/editorials2005/050318-horkan-schiavo.htm
By Thomas A. Horkan Jr.
My first comment on the Terri Schiavo case is that publications or commentaries should be based on factual accuracy — particularly accuracy that would stand up in a court, which is where this case has been decided and where it will eventually be determined. The second point is on the church's teaching on this subject. On this subject, of course, I am a lawyer and not a theologian.
However, I did come to Tallahassee in 1969 to represent the Florida bishops, the same year the first Death With Dignity bill was filed in the Florida Legislature; it was also the first in the United States and, in fact, in the entire civilized world. There was nothing directly on this subject at that time, but a lot of statements on euthanasia, and on the ethics of withdrawing extraordinary means from patients. Having become embroiled immediately in the subject and involved in the statewide and national debate, and in innumerable conferences with the bishops and theologians in Florida, I would like to offer some thoughts.
I. Factual accuracy
The basic facts in the Schiavo case were litigated for years in the circuit court in Pinellas County.
Both sides were ably represented by counsel, extensive testimony and records were introduced on the very matters now found in e-mails and blogs, and the court considered these in repeated trials and hearings. That court's decisions were appealed any number of times by the parents, and were upheld.
Anyone is entitled to disagree with a court ruling, but repeating facts that have been repeatedly rejected by courts without acknowledging the court's findings is misleading, to say the least. The recent statements of the Catholic bishops of Florida are good examples of accuracy and of what I am advocating here.
In the third appeal, in 2001, the District Court of Appeals for the 2nd District upheld the lower court's finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that she wanted the feeding tube withdrawn. This was based on the extensive record, briefs and oral argument of counsel for both parties. However, because an affidavit of a doctor, board certified in neurology, had been filed by the parents stating that, in his opinion, Mrs. Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state, the court, since a matter of life and death was involved, remanded the case to the trial court to review this sole issue once again.
That decision was then appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which turned it down, leaving the district court's ruling intact. On remand in the circuit court, the guardian named two doctors to testify, the parents named two other doctors (but not the one who had filed the sworn statement that Terri Schiavo was not in a persistent vegetative state). The court then appointed a doctor who was the head of neurology at the Cleveland Clinic, a very noted medical clinic in this country, who was also a professor of neurology at Case Western Medical School.
The guardian's experts and the court expert all testified that Terri's cerebral cavity was filled with spinal fluid and there was no brain matter there. The parents' two experts, taking a different tack than had been taken in the appellate court, testified that there were isolated brain cells in the spinal fluid, and that they would like to try to rejuvenate them.
They admitted that it had never been done before, but were willing to try to rejuvenate them. After hearing the evidence, the court rejected the parents' claims and reaffirmed its previous order, which was again appealed to the district court.
The District Court of Appeals subsequently entered its final ruling, which to my mind was a very pro-life ruling, reaffirming that this was in fact Terri Schiavo's decision, not her husband's nor anyone else's; secondly, as to her condition, it affirmed the decision of the trial court that she was in a persistent vegetative state. The ruling, which eloquently reflects its care, diligence and deep personal interest in this case, can be found on the Internet at www.2DCA.org. Click on the Opinion button, then go to 2003, then June, then June 6, 2003, then Schindler v. Schiavo.
The reason I point this out is because all of the e-mails and blogs omit these facts as if they don't exist.
This was litigated vehemently by both sides. The only ones who have heard both sides of this case are the courts and they have rejected the claims now being so widely circulated. I think that when statements are made this has to be taken into consideration. Otherwise those making the statements, regardless of who they are, diminish their standing, before the legal profession and the courts, and probably history itself.
II. Church teaching
Over the years, in fact as long as I was with the conference, the subject of euthanasia, of withdrawal of extraordinary treatment or undue burdens, continued to be a problem and one that demanded careful study. One of the early lessons I learned, which was followed through on, was spelled out in an allocution by Pope Pius XII to anesthesiologists and others to the effect that the decision of what is ordinary or extraordinary does not belong to the medical profession or to the church, but can only be decided by the patient or, if he is incapable, his family.
I have repeatedly read the 2004 allocution by Pope John Paul II to the medical community that contains very strong words about the withdrawal of nourishment from someone in a persistent vegetative state. I found in the beginning of the fourth paragraph, the statement was directed specifically to the medical community, society and the church. Nowhere in the entire allocution did I find any reference to the right of patients to make such decisions and I can only assume that this was deliberately done.
The law does not necessarily agree completely with church teaching, but if Terri Schiavo is the one making this decision, and not her husband, the doctors or the church, then it seems to me that the two are not far apart. Thus I do not think that this matter is as simple as some would have it.
Thomas Horkan Jr. is executive director emeritus of the Florida Catholic Conference.
YOUR ARTICLE: ""March 18, 2005 Editorial
Accuracy, teaching should enlighten Schiavo case ""
I'm sorry but someone NEEDS TO TEAR THIS EDITORIAL APART.
It's filled with ERRORS AND THE WORD * ACCURACY * SHOULD NOT BE ANY WHERE NEAR IT.
It states Terri wanted to be denied Food and Water. That was illegal when Terri had her mis-fortune. Terri is NOT PVS.
Why do people NOT realize that the Supreme Court of FL didn't look at the evidence, but just threw it back to Judge Greer, not realizing the man WAS NOT A JUDGE.
There's NO clear and conveniencing evidence Terri would want to be Murdered.
End of critic by me.
Thomas Horkan Jr. is executive director emeritus of the Florida Catholic Conference.
Perhaps the Pope or the Cardinals could call this guy and straighten him out.
"The District Court of Appeals subsequently entered its final ruling, which to my mind was a very pro-life ruling, reaffirming that this was in fact Terri Schiavo's decision, not her husband's nor anyone else's; secondly, as to her condition, it affirmed the decision of the trial court that she was in a persistent vegetative state. The ruling, which eloquently reflects its care, diligence and deep personal interest in this case, can be found on the Internet at www.2DCA.org. Click on the Opinion button, then go to 2003, then June, then June 6, 2003, then Schindler v. Schiavo."
How is killing Terri "pro-life"?
Just as he accuses Terri's supporters, he is conveniently leaving out the facts of this case that don't support his arguments.