US Supreme Court, CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
I found and posted that thinking there could be some reference to; but another Freeper commented on this case as:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368469/posts
How does this apply to Schiavo?
Well, since consistency is not a highly-regarded value of the current Supreme Court, no one can say that what they say today will have any effect whatever on what they say tomorrow. But if one were to value the principle of stare decisis
it would mean that the parents' lawyers in Terri's case are wasting paper going to the Supremes.
Cruzan is the source of the 'clear and convincing evidence' standard in the Florida statute (although probably from an abundance of caution and a misreading of Cruzan. In Cruzan the Missouri Supreme Court had "... declined to read a broad right of privacy into the State Constitution which would 'support the right of a person to refuse medical treatment in every circumstance,' and expressed doubt as to whether such a right existed under the United States Constitution. It then decided that the Missouri Living Will statute, Mo Rev. Stat. § 459.010 et seq. (1986), embodied a state policy strongly favoring the preservation of life. The court found that Cruzan's statements to her roommate regarding her desire to live or die under certain conditions were 'unreliable for the purpose of determining her intent,' 'and thus insufficient to support the co-guardians['] claim to exercise substituted judgment on Nancy's behalf.' It rejected the argument that Cruzan's parents were entitled to order the termination of her medical treatment, concluding that 'no person can assume that choice for an incompetent in the absence of the formalities required under Missouri's Living Will statutes or the clear and convincing, inherently reliable evidence absent here." SCOTUS then affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision as permissible action of the states under the federal constitution.
Thereafter, some read Cruzan as requiring the clear and convincing standard because it had approved Missouri requiring it. [A little reflection demonstrates this may not be true.] However, this is moot, because (as we all know) Florida chose to require 'clear and convincing' and Judge Greer found it existed and all of the Florida appellate courts have approved that finding as being supported by the evidence.
So, unless SCOTUS has changed its view of the US Consitution since 1992 (a real possibility with this group of yoyo's), it will uphold Florida's determinations in Terri's case.
40 posted on 03/23/2005 9:09:04 AM PST by winstonchurchill