If George Greer is a monster. A dispicable, evil monster, then lets hear what you can call the judges on Florida's second district court? What do you call Judge David Demers of the Sixth Judicial Circuit? What do you call Dr. Jay Wolfson who was appointed 'guardian ad litem' by 6th circuit at the request of Gov Bush to double check facts in case?
Don't you just hate 'facts'? It's more fun to just make them up and call everyone evil monsters and dispicable.
http://www.2dca.org/opinion/March%2016,%202005/2D05-968.pdf
IF FACTS ABOUT THE CASE or FLORIDA LAW BOTHER YOU, DO NOT PROCEED:
16 MAR 2005: SECOND DISTRICT COURT: As a result of an earlier motion for relief from judgment, we required the trial court to reconfirm that medical science offered no meaningful treatment for her condition. The trial court decided not only to reconfirm that issue but also to review its earlier decision that Mrs. Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state. Following another extensive hearing at which many highly qualified physicians testified, the trial court denied the motion for relief from judgment. This court affirmed that decision.
The trial court's decision does not give Mrs. Schiavo's legal guardian the option of leaving the life-prolonging procedures in place. No matter who her guardian is, the guardian is required to obey the court order because the court, and not the guardian, has determined the decision that Mrs. Schiavo herself would make.
The legal process utilized by the trial court in this case is not new. Long before Mrs. Schiavo suffered her heart attack2 in February 1990, the Supreme Court of Florida had already determined that the express right of privacy in article I, section 23, of the Florida Constitution gave both competent and incompetent persons the right to forego life-prolonging procedures. In Corbett, this court interpreted this constitutional protection to apply not only to persons who have the foresight and resources to prepare a living will, but also to those whose wishes have not been reduced to writing. Earlier, in Barry, the right had been recognized by this court for a child who could not have prepared a written directive.
Both the Supreme Court of Florida and this court have concluded that the decision to "terminate artificial life supports is a decision that normally should be made in the patient-doctor-family relationship." We have, however, emphasized that the courts remain open to make these decisions under the Florida Constitution when family members cannot agree or when a guardian believes that it would be more appropriate for a neutral judge to make the decision. As we explained in Schiavo I, this is the approach that Mr. Schiavo, in his capacity as legal guardian of his wife, selected in light of the bitter conflict within this family.
Following the exhaustion of all appellate review of both the final judgment that was entered in February 2000 and the order denying the subsequent motion for relief from judgment, the trial court ordered that, on October 15, 2003, the hospice facility must cease supplying nutrition and hydration through Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube. The hospice facility obeyed this order. On October 21, 2003, the legislature enacted chapter 2003-418, and the Governor signed the act into law. Pursuant to this new act, the Governor ordered a stay, which both this court and the trial court honored. Thus, the hospice facility restored the supply of nutrition and hydration through the feeding tube. Thereafter, the supreme court unanimously held that chapter 2003-418 was unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of powers under the Florida Constitution. Before chapter 2003-418 was held unconstitutional, the Governor requested the Chief Judge of the Sixth Judicial Circuit to appoint a special guardian ad litem for Mrs. Schiavo. Chief Judge David Demers honored that request and appointed a guardian ad litem. The guardian, Dr. Jay Wolfson, has degrees in both law and public health. He submitted a lengthy report to both the court and the Governor. In his summary, Dr. Wolfson stated, in part:
The [guardian ad litem] concludes that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.
…….. both Mr. Schiavo and the Schindlers were allowed to present evidence to the trial court as if each were her guardian. Id. The trial court then made its decision pursuant to law and based upon a heightened standard of proof. That decision has been subject to appeals and postjudgment scrutiny of all varieties, and it remains a valid judgment pursuant to the laws and the constitution of this state.
Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any, similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.
REPEAT: Not only has Mrs. Schiavo's case been given due process, but few, if any, similar cases have ever been afforded this heightened level of process.
We note that the case law generally allows a party to file only one motion for relief under rule 1.540(b). See Berman, supra 540.5(b). Indeed, courts have taken the position that they lack authority "to entertain a second motion for relief from judgment which attempts to relitigate matters settled by a prior order denying relief." Because of the nature of this case, neither the trial court nor this court has enforced these general rules. The Schindlers have filed numerous motions, but they have failed to present any lawful basis for relief from judgment.
Dr. Wolfson, the guardian who was appointed at the request of the Governor, visited Mrs. Schiavo many times in 2003. He was unable to independently observe any "consistent, repetitive, intentional, reproducible interactive and aware activities." His report does not challenge the now well-established medical diagnosis that Mrs. Schiavo's movements are merely reflexive. As he explained: "This is the confusing thing for the lay person about persistent vegetative states."
Our previous statements on the matter apply with undiminished relevancy in this appeal:
The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.
But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about life prolonging procedures. It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for herself. It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life.
We are well aware that many people around the world disagree with the trial court's decision. However, when he became a judge, the trial court judge took an oath, required by the Florida Constitution, to obey the rule of law and the constitution of this state. The trial judge followed and obeyed the law as set out by the precedent of the Supreme Court of Florida and by the general laws adopted by the Legislature. The trial judge made this most difficult decision after fully considering the evidence and applying a heightened standard of proof that is designed to protect society's interest in sustaining life.
That's malarky mayo spread on malarky slices placed on malarky bread.
Why? The Grand and Magnificent evidense is hearsay of the worse sort, and fully countered by other hearsay which the Judge ignored. Why did the Judge ignore it? Because HE made a mistake in what happened when. The Judge's mistake: the year Quinlan died. Yet all the Grand and Magificant due process you so lordily enclaimate was not all capable -- did not have the SANITY, the compus mentus -- that allowed it to discount even the weakest and most disreputable of hearsay evidence.
The ACLU hard are work
WOW! I've never seen that court opinion before. Thanks for posting it. Is there a page somewhere with links to other court opinions in this case?
I don't believe any of this would be going on, if there was some sort of health care proxy that had been signed by Terri. As far as I know there was none?
I can see why the Federal courts will not get involved. It is a state issue, from a purely "legal" standpoint.
With that said, I do believe that Florida is within its purview to pass a law concerning Terri and others in a similar condition. Why? Because there seems to be a difference of opinion on what Terri's wishes were in regards to her condition.
I am very concerned that it appears that Terri was not provided basic medical care such a turning, dental care, etc. Mr. Schiavo may believe his wife's life should be ended, but I don't know if that gives him the authority to neglect what appears to be reasonable medical and dental tasks that can make her life more sustainable in the interim.