Posted on 03/11/2005 4:04:51 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
After state lawmakers passed ''Terri's Law'' in 2003, the Florida Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. But that rebuke hasn't stopped lawmakers from rushing to prepare other bills this year in an attempt to keep Terri Schiavo on a feeding tube and undermine the authority of Florida courts.
There indeed may be room to improve protections for people who are incapacitated or cannot communicate their medical wishes, but changes to law should be debated in a deliberate fashion. Policy that would have life-and-death implications shouldn't be rushed -- not through the Florida Legislature nor Congress. Yet that is what is happening now that Florida courts have said that Michael Schiavo can have his wife's life-sustaining tube removed on March 18.
Battling in court
Florida courts have determined that Ms. Schiavo deteriorated badly in 1990 after her heart stopped beating, depriving her brain of oxygen and leaving her in a persistent vegetative state. Mr. Schiavo says that his wife had told him she would not want to be kept alive through artificial means.
For seven years, however, Ms. Schiavo's parent's have been battling in court and seeking legislative support to keep her alive. Ms. Schiavo has become a cause for the pro-life movement -- and a family tragedy has become a painful public spectacle. Numerous court hearings, including a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, have resulted in consistent rulings favoring Mr. Schiavo.
We don't expect Ms. Schiavo's parents to stop now. But legal arguments shouldn't continue without end. Lawmakers should show more restraint and respect for the law. In Tampa Thursday, Circuit Judge George W. Greer wisely stopped the Department of Children & Families from a last-ditch effort to delay the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube.
Yet rookie U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez has introduced a bill -- his first -- to give people facing removal of life-sustaining treatment the right to habeas corpus in federal court. It's the same protection afforded to death-row inmates who have exhausted their state legal appeals. Sen. Martinez wants the bill to apply retroactively to Ms. Schiavo.
Written orders
In Tallahassee, Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, is pushing a bill that would bar courts or individuals from denying sustenance to an incompetent person unless he or she had left written orders or had consented previously and had been aware of the risk.
Whatever the merits of these bills, they shouldn't be approved without public input and thorough debate. Florida House Speaker Allan Bense, R.-Panama City, has the right idea. ''I want to be sure that what we do with anything in guardianship law is well thought out and planned,'' he said.
Worst-case scenario: Lawmakers hurriedly pass a Terri Schiavo bill before March 18 only to find out later that the legislation is unconstitutional and hurts other Floridians in unintended ways.
If they wished the Florida legislature could abolish Judge Greer's court.
Inasmuch as the Judge's order is tantamount to a death sentence, we might even imagine that the Governor could use his power to pardon to free the victim here from the Judge's order. The Governor might even be able to "seize" and "detain" the Judge at an undisclosed location for that matter.
The Florida "court" was thoroughly discredited in the 2000 election.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The Miami Herald needs to get a copy of the Constitution of the United States of America and have someone read it to them.
It is astonishing to me that so many judges are so anxious to murder Terri. The FL legislature and the Gov., Bush, have really pulled out the stops trying to exterminate the efforts to end her life in a cruel and heartless manner.
Our laws don't permit criminals to face "cruel and unusual" punishment, but a woman who lacks the capacity to speak for herself is going to be subjected to that very fate because her slug of a "husband" wants her dead.
This is despicable. What crime did Terri commit other than making the mistake of marrying such a bottom-feeding piece of crap as Michael? And why are the courts so anxious to help him kill his wife?
It has always bothered me that Terri left no clear end-of-life wishes but the court rushed to judgment. You would think the sensible thing would be to err on the side of caution since it is not clear what she wanted at age 26, and is not clear what she wants now at age 41.
I wonder if the court there in Florida wanted the credit for setting precedents that other states would follow (you can imagine court papers in future referencing "Florida vs. Schindler" or something)
It seems that the judge is too emotionally involved and should step aside. (But, I know that's wishful thinking on my part)
ping
Exactly.
The St. Pete Times weighs in with this,
A Family Matter
In their latest attempt to interfere in the Terri Schiavo case, lawmakers have gone too far, threatening the end-of-life wishes of all Floridians.
A Saint Petersburg Times Editorial
Published March 10, 2005
It is bad enough that grandstanding lawmakers in Washington and Tallahassee insist on meddling in the sad case of Terri Schiavo. It is unconscionable that their latest efforts would stick government's nose into all of our homes and make the most difficult decisions about life and death even harder.
The first piece of legislation filed by U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez invites virtually anyone to ask the federal courts to review state court rulings allowing the removal of feeding tubes. It would apply only to situations similar to Schiavo's, where there is no written directive left by an incapacitated patient and there is a legal dispute. Never mind that federal courts already have refused several times to intervene in the Schiavo case.
This is not an auspicious start for Martinez, who pledged to return to his moderate roots after waging a divisive, ultra-conservative campaign. He defends the legislation by saying it mirrors the protections offered in death penalty cases. But it is incomprehensible to compare state executions with life-ending decisions made by families and guardians who are carrying out the wishes of the incapacitated patient. Sponsors of the companion House bill, which could come to a vote as early as next week, include U.S. Rep. Michael Bilirakis, R-Tarpon Springs, and eight other Florida Republicans. They are infringing upon the constitutional rights of Schiavo and other incapacitated patients who sought to control their destiny.
But the absolute worst meddling is occurring in Tallahassee. The House Health Care Regulation Committee approved a bill Wednesday that is stunning in its breadth and insensitivity to all Floridians. Residents who have living wills that do not specifically address feeding tubes would have to rewrite them or risk being attached to those tubes against their wishes if they are incapacitated. Oral declarations to family members or others about end-of-life wishes, like those Schiavo's husband said she made to him and other family members, essentially could no longer be used to avoid feeding tubes or have them disconnected.
It is morally offensive to attempt to ramrod through the Legislature such fundamental changes to the way life's last wishes are made known and carried out. But the bill's sponsors go through other contortions to ensure the changes would apply to Schiavo. They would apply the changes retroactively to any living person, regardless of what health care decisions have been made but not carried out. Who knows how many other families and other incapacitated patients like Schiavo would find themselves in a gut-wrenching situation that already had been resolved?
Then there is this tortuous effort to legally define caring: Feeding tubes could not be removed from incompetent patients unless the guardian or decisionmaker spent two hours per week for 12 weeks with the patient - or 10 hours a month for three months.
This is government at its absolute worst. Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, and other supporters of the bill failed once before in their effort to intervene in the Schiavo case. They should fare no better this time, and it should not take the Florida Supreme Court to stop them. Gov. Jeb Bush, Senate President Tom Lee and House Speaker Allan Bense should squash this, the Schiavo controversy should play itself out and the rest of us should not have to fear sudden rule changes in the way we prepare for our final days.
Barf.
Whatever it takes to save Terri from being starved to death. Whatever it takes.
Terri ping! If anyone would like to be added to or removed from my Terri ping list, please let me know by FReepmail!
We have a crooked judicial system in Florida - that's the story. THAT IS THE STORY!!!!!!!!
Terri has no diseases, is healthy, needs therapy and is brain damaged but has shown improvement lately. Who are THEY TO CONTINUE TO HARP ABOUT DEATH WISHES????? Terri's living and she seems to be happy, not miserable.
CULTURE OF DEATH IN THE MIDDLE EAST? NAW. They are forcing it upon Floridians through the courts. Thanks, Derek Humphreys who started the death movement because he lost someone to cancer.
TERRI HAS NO DISEASE PROCESSES. Maybe she would like to live since she's NOT DYING!!!!!! She's only dead if they murder her in COLD BLOOD, THE JUDGE IS THE ENABLER OF THESE HEINOUS, BARBAROUS ACTS.
Terri has no diseases, is healthy, needs therapy and is brain damaged but has shown improvement lately. Who are THEY TO CONTINUE TO HARP ABOUT DEATH WISHES????? Terri's living and she seems to be happy, not miserable.
CULTURE OF DEATH IN THE MIDDLE EAST? NAW. They are forcing it upon Floridians through the courts. Thanks, Derek Humphreys who started the death movement because he lost someone to cancer.
TERRI HAS NO DISEASE PROCESSES. Maybe she would like to live since she's NOT DYING!!!!!! She's only dead if they murder her in COLD BLOOD, THE JUDGE IS THE ENABLER OF THESE HEINOUS, BARBAROUS ACTS.
the piece of crap and his attorney will be on hannity and colmes tonight playing for all it's worth how much he loves terri. they are going to try to turn hino into prince charming before the tube comes out. greer is trying to turn himself into the "religious right" before the tube comes out. It's all very sickening. ALL LIARS WITH THE LUST FOR BLOOD.
"Lawmakers UNDERMINE???"......how about CORRUPT COURTS "LEGISLATE FROM THE BENCH"....Judge OVERULES LAW AND ORDER!!
>>It is morally offensive to attempt to ramrod through the Legislature such fundamental changes to the way life's last wishes are made known and carried out.
Nothing is more morally offensive than this article. To put a woman to death based solely on the testimony of her faithless husband and his relatives... how much lower can you sink, morally speaking?
The author of this piece needs to know that the real tragedy is that of the judiciary failing to protect and defend Terri's retained rights as an incapacitated person.
744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.--
(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:
(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.
(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.
(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.
(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
(e) To have a qualified guardian.
(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.
(g) To be properly educated.
(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.
(k) To have access to the courts.
(l) To counsel.
(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.
(n) To notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship, unless the court finds the incapacitated person lacks the ability to comprehend the notice.
(o) To privacy.
(2) Rights that may be removed from a person by an order determining incapacity include the right:
(a) To marry.
(b) To vote.
(c) To personally apply for government benefits.
(d) To have a driver's license.
(e) To travel.
(f) To seek or retain employment.
(3) Rights that may be removed from a person by an order determining incapacity and which may be delegated to the guardian include the right:
(a) To contract.
(b) To sue and defend lawsuits.
(c) To apply for government benefits.
(d) To manage property or to make any gift or disposition of property.
(e) To determine his or her residence.
(f) To consent to medical and mental health treatment.
(g) To make decisions about his or her social environment or other social aspects of his or her life.
(4) Without first obtaining specific authority from the court, as described in s. 744.3725, a guardian may not:
(a) Commit the ward to a facility, institution, or licensed service provider without formal placement proceeding, pursuant to chapter 393, chapter 394, or chapter 397.
(b) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance on the ward of any experimental biomedical or behavioral procedure or to the participation by the ward in any biomedical or behavioral experiment. The court may permit such performance or participation only if:
1. It is of direct benefit to, and is intended to preserve the life of or prevent serious impairment to the mental or physical health of the ward; or
2. It is intended to assist the ward to develop or regain his or her abilities.
(c) Initiate a petition for dissolution of marriage for the ward.
(d) Consent on behalf of the ward to termination of the ward's parental rights.
(e) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance of a sterilization or abortion procedure on the ward.
History.--s. 34, ch. 89-96; s. 19, ch. 90-271; s. 36, ch. 93-39; s. 13, ch. 94-183; s. 44, ch. 96-169; s. 6, ch. 96-354; s. 1782, ch. 97-102.
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.