DCF Considers Removing Schiavo from Hospice by Force

Palm Beach Post ^ | 3.23.05 | Dara Kam

[gopwinsin04]

State officials say they are considering removing Terri Schiavo from hospice, by force if necessary, despite numerous court orders upholding the removal of the artificial nutrition tube that has kept her alive for 15 years.

Lucy Hadl, secretary of the Department of Children and Families, said Wednesday morning that her staff is relying on a state law that gives the department the authority to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable adult who is 'suffering from abuse or neglect that presents a risk of death or serious physical injury.'

Hadl said that the DCF would have to file a petition in order to remove Schiavo, but that 'it doesn't mean we'd have to have judicial approval in advance of taking the action if we believed it met the threshold for doing it.'

Hadl said that seven years of court rulings backing Schiavo's husband Michael, in his contention that Terri Schiavo did not wish to be kept alive artificially would not stop the DCF from taking action.

'We're not compelled to look at prior judicial proceedings,' Hadl said.

What we are compelled to look at is the presenting circumstances and any allegiations of abuse and neglect that we have recieved. So we have to deal with those and fufill out statutory responsibility.'

[Jimmyclyde]

Bedtime.

Thanks for your comments.

A lot of food for thought.

Have a good night.

[thoughtomator]

There actually isn't an order ordering the feeding tube removed, mate.

[185JHP]

BTTT

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Please God!!!

[nina0113]

I notice you didn't answer my question.

What should we do with people who are born disabled?

Your views of biology are peculiar, to say the least - humans cannot become vegetables. That phrase was coined to dehumanize the helpless.

[maryz]

As far as I know, Terri has never been on life support.

I'm really not absolutely clear on this, and I don't have an original source -- just FR, but my understanding is that Felos was involved in getting Florida law changed to classify feeding tubes as life support. And I guess the law allows removal of "life support" from anyone diagnosed with PVS, at the decision of the guardian. This is why Greer admitted only medical testimony that Terri is in PVS.

[kittymyrib]

The doctor from the Mayo Clinic said she is not in a PVS. So who are you going to believe, the doctor or the blind mullah, Greer?

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!!

[Jim Noble]

If she had a living will indicating that it was OK to terminate her life by dehydration ans starvation, I would agree with you, Michael Schiavo, and Judge Greer

But consider the following:

First, and most importantly, "living wills" are usually revoked by their authors when they become sick. The intentions of healthy people, especially healthy young people, almost never correspond to their actual intentions when ill. (I know this from thirty years of practice, much of it with seriously or terminally ill people). Only persons who cannot communicate "stick to" their prior wishes, but they have no choice.

Secondly, you cannot consent or make a contract to be killed. Jack Kervorkian is (rightly) still in prison for his crimes. Dressing this contract up as a "living will" does not change the issue.

On the contrary side, management decisions are made every day by hundreds of families on behalf of seriously ill patients that result in their death (or, more properly, that change the timing of their death). These decisions are not murders, and are usually not intentional killings, which remain very rare despite the fact that no true "mercy killing" has ever been successfully prosecuted.

The Schiavo case exists because of widespread confusion regarding the above issues, and the unsuitable surrogacy of Michael Schiavo. People want more from "living wills" than they can possibly deliver.

I fear that the result of this is going to be legalized direct killing a la the Netherlands.

[adc]

As far as I know Terri has never been on life support

but my understanding is that Felos was involved in getting Florida law changed to classify feeding tubes as life support.And I guess the law allows removal of "life support" from anyone diagnosed with PVS, at the decision of the guardian.


But again, this is my original question: Has in fact, the Florida law been changed to classify feeding tubes as life support? How on earth could that happen? Do you mean a law was changed back then specifically for the legal guardian of Terri Schiavo without any judicial review? I'm still not understanding this.

[maryz]

Has in fact, the Florida law been changed to classify feeding tubes as life support?

I tried googling, but all I could find was that, in one filing, Gibbs (the family's lawyer) argued that, even if Terri had expressed the intention Michael claims, feeding tubes were not considered life support under Florida law in the 80s. Sounds like the law has been changed since then; as I said, I read on FR that Felos was an advocate for changing it.

[adc]

So Felos petitioned the court to change the law as it stood in Florida to make feeding tubes considered "life support"? And that's why the feeding tube was allowed to be removed from Terri? And all we hear today is that Congress and the President should not have intervened in this case to change the law for one person. Did that not happen already in Terri's case by Felos then?

[maryz]

I doubt that he petitioned the court. The change went through the legislature, and Felos was just one of those pushing for the change. I don't know the date of change to the law or the date Felos first became involved in this case. Recall that he's big in the Hemlock Society, and loves Schiavo-type cases (guess on which side!) -- I heard he is or was involved in about 10 of them. So this case wouldn't have been his only motivation.

He may also be on the Board of the hospice involved, and I think I saw that Greer is, too. Florida may be as corrupt as Massachusetts (yes, I'm from MA).

[adc]

He may also be on the Board of the hospice involved, and I think I saw that Greer is, too.
If true, then that explains alot. Amazing. Have a place in MA, I sympathize.

[maryz]

I forgot to say Felos has also written a book: Spiritual Litigation, which has a whopping two stars on Amazon. Check out the customer reviews! Sample quote:

This book is a frightening journey into the mind of a man who publicly endorses euthanasia on disabled people who are not terminally ill. Much of the book describes his bizarre spirituality. He actually wrote that he believes he is a god and that he has the power to read people's minds.

[ninenot]

Perhaps Wallace is "arrogant," although I haven't seen that in reading a couple of his posts.

However, there's little question that the judiciary has become arrogant. In the Schiavo case, Greer has managed to become the very symbol of Judicial Arrogance, through the simple expedient of ignoring the requirement to "choose life." While Greer is not the first jurist to go this route, (Roe v Wade's majority was...) he is the first who has achieved national exposure by ignoring this principle on a living adult.

I have no idea what motivates Greer (and the rest of the FLA appeals-types, or for that matter the Federalistas who have simply contravened the will of Congress in the last 3 days.) I have no idea why Greer does not examine evidence which tends to contradict that which he has already examined. I have no idea why he does not say "Well, there are newer and better medical technologies which may give me a better understanding of Terri's condition...."

But I DO have an idea that this arrogant jackass Greer has gone a long way toward demolishing the concept that the United States is a "chosen land." And the consequences of his arrogance have yet to be played out--but they will be significant.

He has certainly assisted those who are making the case that the Judiciary as a whole is out of control and in LaLaLand. Further, he is personally making the case that Judges Will Not Be Questioned.

Only 140 years ago, the US lost 600 thousand men partially over the Dred Scott decision.

My response to Greer: your decision cannot stand in any society which respects First Things. It MUST not stand.

[ninenot]

I fear that the result of this is going to be legalized direct killing a la the Netherlands.

So do I, and why for one moment should we compare it to 'the Netherlands' when another viable comparison is the Third Reich?

Who shall be the 'judge' of 'viability,' and what will be the criteria?

[Modernman]

Rule of law is one thing, Rule of Judiciary is another.

For what it's worth, here is part of the Federal court's decision.

"There is no denying the absolute tragedy that has befallen Mrs. Schiavo," Judges Ed Carnes and Frank M. Hull of the appellate court wrote in their 32-page decision. "We all have our own family, our own loved ones, and our own children. However, we are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. In the end, and no matter how much we wish Mrs. Schiavo had never suffered such a horrible accident, we are a nation of laws, and if we are to continue to be so, the pre-existing and well-established federal law . . . must be applied to her case."

Doesn't look like judicial activism to me.

[Wallace T.]

The 14th Amendment essentially extends the protections of the Federal Bill of Rights, including due process of law, to the states. I will defer to your understanding of the amendment, although I am not aware of any implementing legislation. However, all the tools needed to remove Terri Schiavo from imminent death are available to Governor Jeb Bush. He only needs to exercise them. Had he done so, there would have been no need for Federal intervention.

[Wallace T.]

It is not judicial activism on the part of either Federal court that has reviewed the Florida case. However, it is a rubber stamp of what appears to be a flawed decision by the court of original jurisdiction.