Supreme Court Rulings on Right-to-Die Issues Leave Questions

It ruled in 1990 that a terminally ill person has a right to refuse life-sustaining treatment. And next term it plans to consider whether the federal government can prosecute doctors who help ill patients die.

Terri Schiavo's case offers a number of legal questions for the Court to consider.... Among them is whether she actually requested that artificial means not be used to keep her alive and whether state or federal courts should be the venue to determine her fate.

An emergency filing to the high court that seeks to reinsert Schiavo's feeding tube while the case is litigated would go first to Justice Anthony Kennedy....

Kennedy, who has staked a moderate position on social issues, would have the option to act on the petition alone, although on previous emergency requests involving Schiavo he has referred the matter to the full nine-member Court.

In Schiavo's case, the high court has rejected four emergency requests from Schiavo's parents to keep her on a feeding tube after Florida state courts declined to do so. While the legal arguments varied, all have centered in part on what she would have wanted.

She did not leave a "living will" indicating her wishes. Her parents also say Michael Schiavo has a conflict of interest as his wife's legal guardian because he has a longtime girlfriend, with whom he has children.

"One big worry is that, obviously, she's not brain dead. But is she really in a 'persistent vegetative state'? If she isn't, no one should be deciding to cut her off," said Martha Field, a Harvard law professor. "We're also in a place where it's important to draw the line in consent because, realistically, it isn't Terri's choice, it's her husband's choice."

Regarding Terri Schiavo: Facts Should Trump Emotions and Activism

by Frank Salvato

Mar 22, 2005

So it has come to this, a true test to see if the American political system, judicial system and the American public as a whole have the ability to set aside emotion and activism in deference to the facts. So far the jury is out on this question. Just as it is out on the question of whether or not Terri Schiavo will live or die. Personally, I think we can do better, much better.

I find it reprehensible that in an age when gathering facts has never been easier or more convenient, most among us prove delinquent in doing so, even in matters of life and death and especially in those that will set precedent for future actions. It is grave evidence that our society is in a “persistent vegetative state” where the overbearing voice of the activist agenda trumps not only the good of the people but common sense. Our failure to ascertain facts or even be tempted by unanswered questions renders us neutered by political correctness. This is the death knell of civic responsibility and thus moves us closer to being considered cowards in the eyes of our Founders.

It has become apparent that there is a need to consider the facts before we can be moved to consider the questions that they raise. To this end the mainstream media has been abhorrently delinquent, opting instead to report sensational half-facts ala The Enquirer circa 1975. This proves one of two things or perhaps both; that the mainstream media has lost its ability to report the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that it has turned into an activist propaganda machine hell-bent on the destruction of the American right to be informed.

Many questions have been raised over the course of the Terri Schiavo case. The astounding thing is that few have been answered. Instead we see reluctance by the court to explore all avenues of knowledge available while it consistently rules in favor of a petitioner whose motives are questionable at best. Make no mistake, a court that refuses to examine all facets of an issue and excludes expert testimony presenting an alternative opinion can only be classified as an activist court.

Terri Schiavo did not have a Living Will. Therefore, the issue of her wishes is open to question. While it is normal for our society to depend on the spouse to convey the wishes of the critically disabled or injured, in circumstances when immediate family members hold adamant opposition to a matter concerning decisions of life and death we must insist that all voices be heard.

In this instance the Schindlers (Terri Schiavo’s parents), practicing Catholics who have always considered their family close, claim that Terri would never have considered ending her life given these circumstances. While the tenets of Terri’s religion reinforce this claim, her spouse, with no other proof than his word, claims otherwise. Thus we have a “He-Said-She-Said” dilemma. That is until we hear a statement made by an ex-girlfriend of Michael Schiavo’s referred to only as “Cyndi” due to the fact that she fears the man. Obviously this is why she is an “ex-girlfriend.”

On April 25th of 2001 Cyndi stated that Michael Schiavo admitted to lying about Terri expressing anything about her wishes regarding life sustaining treatment in the event of severe disability. While Cyndi later refused to testify citing her fear of Michael Schiavo, the issue became moot when just a day later on April 26th Judge George Greer refused to hear any testimony at all regarding Michael Schiavo’s statement. No investigation. No consideration. Nothing.

To say the least, Terri Schiavo’s wishes remain in question. For the courts to rule on behalf of Michael Schiavo based solely on the legal point that he is the next of kin, especially in light of her parents’ declarations and the silenced testimony of a woman who feared for her well being, is irresponsible and grounds for Judge Greer’s removal from the case, if not the bench.

Florida Statute 765.101 defines a persistent vegetative state (PVS) as being a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is: a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind, and b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment. The opinion that Terri Schiavo’s behavior meets the medical and/or statutory definition of PVS doesn’t take into account that she responds to stimuli, tries to communicate verbally, follows limited commands, laughs and cries in interaction with loved ones, physically distances herself from irritating or painful stimulation and watches loved ones as they move around her. These observations were made by medical professionals and are on record. Further no MRI or PET scans have ever been performed on Terri Schiavo on orders issued by her “husband.”

The question here is, who determined that Terri Schiavo met the criteria for being in PVS? While 14 independent doctors — including six neurologists — adamantly refute the diagnosis of PVS, stating that therapy would be beneficial to Ms. Schiavo, Judge Greer has consistently excluded their testimony in favor of opinions from four doctors that adhere to the PVS diagnosis.

Of the 4 doctors selected to be the court’s medical authorities, three were hand-picked by Michael Schiavo and one was selected by Judge Greer.

Dr. Peter Bambakidis, appointed by Greer, has questionable affiliations with Michael Schiavo’s lawyer George Felos.

Dr. Melvin Greer insists that a doctor need not examine a patient to know the appropriate medical treatment.

Dr. Victor Gambone has stated that he has been startled by Terri Schiavo’s awareness.

Dr. Ronald Cranford, is on the board of the Euthanasia Society of America, has ties to the Hemlock Society and even advocates denial of spoon-feeding for the disabled.

To say the very least, the word impartial cannot be used when discussing the medical testimony provided in this case, neither can the word thorough. In fact, the “deck was stacked” in Michael Schiavo’s favor, something easily done when one is the “dealer.” To say that there are no unanswered questions and no bias regarding the medical opinions issued in the Terri Schiavo case is to be ignorant of the facts and ignorant of the truth.

Add to just these two issues the following facts, and I beg you, challenge yourself to be curious as to why:

Terri Schiavo has always been able to swallow but her “husband” denied her the therapy that would allow her to re-learn how to eat even though the therapy is considered mandatory by Florida Statute 744.3215, even to those diagnosed with PVS.

Although Michael Schiavo was awarded $600,000 of his own in a malpractice award regarding this case he has squandered the million dollars plus settlement that was to pay for Terri Schiavo’s medical care. A ruling by Judge Greer has allowed that money to be spent on Michael’s attorney’s fees.

Although Michael Schiavo has remained married to Terri he has fathered two children with his girlfriend whose mother has a connection with the county sheriff (this would prove convenient when trying to allude investigation into anything that might be construed as criminal).

Michael Schiavo filed a petition to prohibit the media from seeing Terri’s neurological examination videotapes or airing the videos to the public after they had been presented to the court as evidence.

Michael Schiavo has petitioned to have Terri cremated immediately after her death.

The list of questionable issues surrounding this case goes on and on and on.

To say that this case is a tragedy would be the understatement of the millennium. To say that this is a case about advocating the agenda of the Right to Life crowd is ludicrous. This is more than a tragedy and it is slowly becoming a judicial travesty. This case is about whether the life of another human being, a damaged human being but a human being nevertheless, should be snuffed out by the stroke of a pen and the disconnection of a feeding tube, all on the unsubstantiated word of a man who couldn’t even honor the vow of “’Til death do we part.” This case is about a murder of convenience.

Florida courts have long been known for leaning towards the liberal and activist agendas. In most instances of their activism the remedy of judicial prudence was found in appeals to the federal court. This time they have come dangerously close to setting a precedent that would allow for the legitimization of an ideology that would advocate the termination of the infirmed. It is chilling.

Image that when you arrive at old age you become afflicted with a debilitating disease, your mouth doesn’t want to do what you want it to and your speech isn’t what it used to be. Your arms and legs aren’t as quick to react as they once were. You are incontinent and as your body begins to wear out you require the aid of a feeding tube for nutrition and therapy to help you maintain any semblance of mobility. Your memory is fading but you are aware and appreciative of your surroundings, your family and your friends.

Now imagine Michael Schiavo is your guardian.

Sleep well, we all get older.

Frank Salvato is a political media consultant and managing editor for The Rant.us

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.