By Randy Schultz, Palm Beach Post Editor of the Editorial Page
Sunday, November 2, 2003
If you listen only to Gov. Bush and the Legislature talk about Terri Schiavo, you might think that the courts have rushed to end the life of a helpless woman. If you read what the courts actually have done and said, you understand that the governor and Legislature are wrong.
The story line from Tallahassee is loving parents vs. scheming husband, aided by reckless, uncaring judges. To the rescue come a compassionate, moral governor and Legislature. In reality, the cast and the roles don't line up quite so perfectly.
Pinellas County Circuit Judge George Greer has received most of the criticism because he ruled for Michael Schiavo. Reviewing his decisions, however, has been the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal, which in June entered the ruling that led last month to the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube, which led to "Terri's Law," which led to the case being national news.
Chief Judge Chris Altenbernd, who wrote the ruling, is an Eagle Scout with two children. Gov. Bob Martinez, a Republican, named him to the appeals court. Carolyn Fulmer, one of the concurring judges, also has two children. Democrats Bob Graham and Lawton Chiles put on her on the circuit and appeals court, respectively. Judge Thomas E. Stringer has four children. Gov. Graham put him on the county court, Gov. Martinez put him on the circuit court, and Gov. Bush put him on the appeals court.
So this panel can be labeled neither "liberal" nor "conservative." Let's deal, then, with the two counts of the indictment: that the court acted hastily, and that the court is uncaring.
The June ruling was the fourth that the 2nd DCA has issued in the Schiavo case. Each time, the court eventually has upheld Judge Greer's finding that Terri Schiavo did not want to be kept alive artificially, and that the feeding tube can be removed.
In its third ruling, the appeals court noted that "clear and convincing evidence at the time of trial supported a determination that Mrs. Schiavo would have chosen in February 2000 to withdraw the life-prolonging procedures." Yet even then, the court did not dismiss outright the late claim by Terri Schiavo's parents, Mary and Bob Schindler, that therapy could help their daughter.
So the appeals court sent the case back to Judge Greer. The Schindlers, though, had to show that treatment would "significantly" improve Ms. Schiavo's life. The court ordered an examination by five physicians. At Judge Greer's hearing, the Schindlers "presented little testimony." The doctor who caused the appeals court to order the review did not appear. The one who did made a weak case.
"It is likely that no guardianship court," the judges said, "has ever received as much high-quality medical evidence in such a proceeding." The appeals court looked at the full-length videotapes of Ms. Schiavo, not the excerpts on TV news programs. The judges examined brain scans. The conclusion: Terri Schiavo is in a permanent vegetative state.
But as Judge Altenbernd noted in June: "Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children... 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."
So the court sees Terri Schiavo as a person. The court knows the tragedy, of her condition, the family fight, the unpleasant decision. "It is a thankless task," Judge Altenbernd wrote, "and one to be taken with care, objectivity and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life.
"But it is also a necessary function if all people are to be entitled to a personalized decision about life-prolonging procedures independent of the subjective and conflicting assessments of their friends and relatives... the law currently provides no better solution that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life."
It should have ended there. The courts have spent years on Terri Schiavo's case and acknowledged the difficulty. The governor and Legislature spent two hours and proclaimed themselves saviors. So who's being reckless and uncaring?
And so, it's putting a "person" to death, on less proof than would be needed to send someone to Florida's electric chair. Does something look fishy here?