Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: shhrubbery!
As I understand it, Florida legislators have made it lawful to starve/dehydrate to the former [PVS] to death, but not the latter [minimally conscious]. Hence the desperate attempts to get the court to recognize opinions that Terri Schiavo was not "PVS."

Florida case law does not even require a finding of PVS. Only a finding of incompetence.

Supreme Court of Florida.

In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING.
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Doris F. HERBERT, etc., Respondent.

No. 74174.

Sept. 13, 1990.

BARKETT, Justice.

We have for review In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:

Whether the guardian of a patient who is incompetent but not in a permanent vegetative state and who suffers from an incurable, but not terminal condition, may exercise the patient's right of self-determination to forego sustenance provided artificially by a nasogastric tube?

Id. at 274. [FN1] We answer the question in the affirmative as qualified in this opinion.

FN1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Estelle Browning died on July 16, 1989, at the age of 89. Although the claim is moot, we accept jurisdiction because the issue raised is of great public importance and likely to recur. In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Fla.1989); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984).

I. THE FACTS

On November 19, 1985, a competent Estelle Browning executed a declaration that provides, in part:

If at any time I should have a terminal condition and if my attending physician has determined that there can be no recovery from such condition and that my death is imminent, I direct that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn when the application of such procedures would serve only to prolong artificially the process of dying.

In addition, Mrs. Browning stipulated that she desired not to have "nutrition and hydration (food and water) provided by gastric tube or intravenously." [FN2]

FN2. The entire form is reproduced in the appendix of the district court's opinion. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).

At eighty-six years of age, Mrs. Browning suffered a stroke.

...

The consensus of the medical evidence indicated that the brain damage caused by the hemorrhage was major and permanent and that there was virtually no chance of recovery. Death would occur within seven to ten days were the nasogastric feeding tube removed. However, Mrs. Browning's life could have been prolonged up to one year as long as she was maintained on the feeding tube and assuming the absence of infection.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/browning.txt <--

Browning was 86 and a stroke victim. She did have a written advance directive. The patient was not PVS and was not terminal. Florida court system held that starving her to death was legal. Note the decision dates to 1990, before the Florida statute was changed so that the definition of "life-prolonging procedure" was expanded to specifically include "artificially provided sustenance and hydration."

Chapter 765, Florida Statutes 2004 <-- 765.101(10)

Note also the recitiations in Browning's living will. These were construed by the Florida District Court of Appeals in such a way as to find that Browning was legally terminal. That a scheduled natural death by dehydration, under the fact circumstances of the case, was what Browning wanted, and was therefore legal.

This is also the case that lays the groundwork for the assertion that Michael somehow did the blood family a favor, by following the "more strenuous" legal course before starving Terri to death. The alternative, less strenuous course, is to starve her to death with no permission required from the court.

33 posted on 04/12/2005 10:28:37 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
Yikes. Well I wasn't planning to move to Florida anyway -- though I wonder if most other states aren't just as bad.

Since judges everywhere seem to have arrogated such god-like power of interpretation of patients' "wishes," AND the power to change the meaning of words (e.g., "marriage," "terminal condition," "imminent death"), maybe your life in such situation depends simply on the luck of the draw!

All the more reason NOT to execute a "living will," but instead to designate durable power of attorney for your health care to some trusted persons --no matter where you live.

That seems to be the best defense against imperious judges that I've been able to find.

42 posted on 04/12/2005 11:46:21 AM PDT by shhrubbery! (The 'right to choose' = The right to choose death --for somebody else.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: Cboldt
legally terminal.

actually, under their way of stretching the truth - we are ALL "legally terminal" in that we WILL all die one day - I just don't want any help doing it, thank you - and Dr. Death better not mess with my kids or they're liable to declare him brain dead - may even help him along to it

79 posted on 04/12/2005 9:06:18 PM PDT by maine-iac7 ("...BUT YOU CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME." Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson