Posted on 09/18/2005 1:25:48 PM PDT by Crackingham
Michael Schiavo is co-writing a book with author Michael Hirsh to tell his side of the end-of-life case that divided much of the country. Schiavo's wife Terri suffered a brain injury in 1990 that left her in what some doctors called a "persistent vegetative state." She died March 31 after a bitter court battle between her husband and her parents.
Hirsh expects the 280-page book, "Terri: the Truth," to be available just before the first anniversary of Terri's death. Dutton Publishing publicity manager Jean Anne Rose confirmed that the company is publishing the book in March.
Michael Schiavo's decision to remove a feeding tube that kept his brain-damaged wife alive alienated him from her parents, drew a Congressional intervention and even prompted criticism from President Bush.
Hirsh, 62, is a Vietnam veteran and a former Los Angeles television producer who has written three books about the military.
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."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.
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.
The below paragraph comes from the dissenting opinion by OVERTON. What struck me was what may be an express admission that starvation death is "early termination of life."
I am concerned that, if there is no judicial involvement, these decisions could be made by surrogates who would benefit financially from an early termination of the ward's life. Given the factors involved, I find a substantial state interest in the protection of the ward and also a need to assure the public that a proper decision is being made where the intent of the ward is unknown or is based only on the ward's prior oral statement. In this type of situation, I would be much more comfortable with an impartial judge having the opportunity to determine the validity of the oral statement and the medical certificates, particularly where those making the decision have a financial interest.
The majority opinion nonetheless asserts that the death is by natural causes. Note too, that the dissent is okay with starvation death, as long as the facts are reviewed first, by a judge. So, it's possible that the dissent's use of "early death" refers merely to the difference between a surrogate making the decision with, vs. without judicial approval.
Two other asserted state interests do not merit much discussion. First, there is no issue in this case pertaining to third parties. Second, suicide is not an issue when, as here, the discontinuation of life support "in fact will merely result in [her] death, if at all, from natural causes." Satz, 362 So.2d at 162.
I pray it flops.
BARF, PUKE!!!!!!!!!!!
I know some of us will be curious as to what the bastard writes in his book, but i ask that none of us buy the book and encourage everyone we know to not buy it either!
No problem, only the Roe vs Wade types would buy it anyways.
[The Federal Courts also put all of the burden on Terri, including, for example, the stance that the denial of basic care was the "status quo" that the statutory law was designed to preserve.]
That one really chaps my britches. The very principle of "preserve status quo" is to avoid irreversible decisions, and death happens to be irreversible. The appellate courts used mumbo-jumbo to avoid conflict. Being outcome-based undermines the legitimacy of the court system.
Exactly, well said. Thank you for your informative and thoughtful post.
"It is the mandate of the court...." 2nd court of Appeals.
Thanks for the post and 'reminding' some just what the 'falling out' was all about.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1425649/posts?page=37#37
Vet didn't want to do it because he could of found homes for them.
thanks - that part I didn't know that.
I'm not curious at all.
Michael was caught red handed with another perjury charge on that one, but he got away with it like everything else.
More profit in this for Mr. Schiavo.
=======
He'll profit without a dime from me.
AMEN Sister!!
You're welcome. Unfortunately, some folks have their own agenda. Don't ask me why, because I sure don't know...
thanks - that part I didn't know that.
Neither did I. Goes to show that I didn't read "everything". Why didn't the vet refuse to do this?
Title: How I made sure Terri's side of the story would never be known.
Dispicable 'human being'..that tried to make money off of a living Terri and her death..excuse me, her Murder.
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.