Terri Schiavo's Next to Last Day: A Look Back, "I Want to Live"

Life News ^ | 3/30/07 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

St. Petersburg, FL (LifeNews.com) -- Terri Schiavo's family will never forget the next to last day of her life two years ago. It started with a Supreme Court ruling and a judgment by a federal appeals court, and ended with the knowledge that their daughter wanted to live.

The U.S. Supreme Court, on that Wednesday, issued a decision allowing Terri Schiavo's painful starvation death. It wound up being the last legal decision in the long battle between Bob and Mary Schindler and Terri's former husband Michael.

The once-sentence ruling was issued just hours after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals again voted 10-2 not to get involved in the case and reviewing a decision by a local judge to have Michael kill Terri.
The Supreme Court offered no explanation for turning back the latest request and provided no vote tally of members to determine if any wanted to take the case.

"We're watching a black mark in American history," David Gibbs, the lead attorney for the Schindlers, said afterwards.

The Schindlers also faced another setback that day when the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Florida upheld Judge George Greer's ruling preventing the Florida Department of Children and Families from taking Terri in to protective custody.

The state agency hoped to do that while it investigated allegations of abuse and neglect against Michael.

CBS News also angered its viewers and Terri Schiavo supporters that day.

It came under fire for prewriting and posting to its news web site a story claiming Terri Schiavo had died.

The article, penned by Christine Lagorio, claimed Michael was with her when she died and was posted on the CBS News web page three days before her actual death, according to radio talk show host Glenn Beck, who discovered it.

CBS News spokeswoman Sandy Genelius told LifeNews.com that the story was "a draft that was stored on the web site" but not intended to be accessible to the public.

The day before, euthanasia advocate George Felos, Michael's attorney, said Michael had changed his mind and would allow an autopsy to be conducted on Terri. The altruistic statement declared Michael wanted to exonerate himself on accusations he abused Terri and to show Terri is very severely brain damaged.

Yet, the decision to conduct an autopsy had already been made when Felos spoke with the media -- and not by Michael or Felos.

Jon Thogmartin, medical examiner for Pinellas and Pasco counties, told the St. Petersburg Times newspaper he made the decision to conduct an autopsy if necessary and said it had nothing to do with Michael's change of heart.

Terri's parents ended the day before Terri's death with the knowledge that their daughter wanted to live.

Just before representatives of Michael's removed her feeding tube Terri Schiavo reportedly told an attorney for her parents that she wanted to live.

"Terri, if you would just say, 'I want to live,' all of this will be over," Barbara Weller, one of the attorneys for Terri's parents Bob and Mary Schindler, said.

Weller said Terri desperately tried to repeat her words.

"'I waaaaannt ...,' Schiavo allegedly said. Weller described it as a prolonged yell that was loud enough that police stationed nearby entered the hospice room.

"She just started yelling, 'I waaaannt, I waaaannt,'" Weller explained.

Terri's parents filed a legal motion to try to get her planned euthanasia death reversed, but to no avail.

Related web sites:
Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation - http://www.terrisfight.org

[pbmaltzman]

Actually, I believe that Michael Schiavo *was* awarded some amount of money for “loss of consortium” (loss of companionship). However, the bulk of the money was originally awareded for the purpose of Terri’s rehabilitation—which rehabilitation was never given to her once the money was in the bank.

[T'wit]

>> Darwinian ethics

Ooh, look at that, a perfect oxymoron!

[dbehsman]

Your post is so full of mistruths and factual inaccuracies that it boggles the mind.

You have not answered a single question of mine. Not one. You call us the "Taliban wing" of FreeRepublic, and storm out of here, and then come storming back. What is the matter with you? Do you want to have a conversation or not?

You claim the court is playing doctor.

I made a wry comment. I did not make a claim. Evidently the wit was wasted on the witless.

You obviously have not been to many courthouse’s in your life.

True. I try to avoid courthouses. I think they're dangerous to a persons health. ; )

Courts make hundreds of rulings everyday based on expert medical testimony in cases that range guardianship, such as this case, to personal injury cases.

This was not a case of guardianship, this was a case of life and death.

I have never heard of anyone criticizing it and that is not going to change, because of your delusions as the functions of a court.

You've NEVER heard of a court case or a judge being criticized? I find that a little tough to believe. What do you think we're doing right here?

You then state that the evidence was ‘ambiguous.’ Another falsehood.

Yes, it was ambiguous. Terri's husband said one thing (after he had already changed his mind), and her friends and family said something else. Would you prefer the term "unreliable"?

The standard of proof in this case was “proof by clear and convincing evidence.” Do you even know what this means?

Yes, I know what it means.

It is high standard to be met by Michael Schiavo.

I do not believe that standard was met. There was conflicting testimony by credible people. The court simply chose to ignore it.

Case law opinions equate it to the standard a reasonable person would use in a making an important decision in his business or personal affairs. Every court that heard or reviewed the case agreed that this standard was met in this case. No reasonable person thinks the evidence was ambiguous. Her wishes were well known and the testimony was convincing, to every court.

The judicial system is not God. The judicial system has made mistakes before, and they will make mistakes in the future. The system is not perfect. I mean, do you REALLY need for me to start listing some of the completely jackass rulings that the courts have made over the years?!?!?

I am very familiar with the eighth amendment. It has NO application to the Schiavo case.

You think that a court ordered death by starvation is NOT cruel and unusual? Wow, what a moral standard you have. NERO would be proud! (you'll notice that I carefully did not invoke the name of any Nazi or Communist so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities)

I challenge you to show me a single guardianship or end of life case that even cites the eighth amendment.

I never claimed that there was one.

Not even the parent’s attorneys brought up the eighth amendment in their dozens of pleadings or motions. I’m sure they didn’t want to get laughed out of court. I’m still ROTFLOL regarding this comment.

Terri was sentenced to death in a manner that has been banned by the Geneva convention. For fourteen days she was starved and dehydrated to death. I would call that pretty cruel and unusual. I'm not sure why you think it's funny that Terri is not worthy of Eighth amendment protections.

Over three quarters of the American public agrees with the law, as applied in the Schiavo case.

Yes, it's an evil little world that we live in.

There was no ground swell for change, and there will not be a ground swell, if your rhetoric is anything like what is on this thread.

Oh, I don't know. We must be having some kind of effect. The deathbots keep coming back with insults and evasions, and then they go away with their tails between their legs.

The outright falsehoods and outrageous hyperbole by the parent’s supporters can easily be discounted by reasonable people.

Well, I'm sure that you deathbots are all perfect and without flaw. (/sarcasm)

Don’t expect many converts with your tact. Do you realize that you cannot even convert a majority of freepers with the mindless rhetoric?

Do you have any polling data of Freepers on this? Please post it if you do.

[T'wit]

>> Actually, I believe that Michael Schiavo *was* awarded some amount of money for “loss of consortium” (loss of companionship)

Correct. $600,000, of which he got to keep something like half after lawyers and tax collectors raided it. That was his award, not part of Terri's trust fund for therapy. It is interesting that he never spent any of HIS money seeking to fulfill Terri's alleged wish to die. After all that blather about keeping his promise to her, it didn't include spending one penny of his own to keep his promise. He spent only her money -- by embezzling her trust fund (with judicial approval).

There was an earlier award, a settlement out of court, for $250,000. That money simply disappeared. We can guess who got it.

[dbehsman]

The best advice is never to believe poll results. The second best advice is never to cite poll results to say, "See, people agree with me." If you need poll numbers to support your point of view, your view isn't worth a wet potato chip.

LOL!

Thanks for the laugh. I like that, "your view isn't worth a wet potato chip". I'm going to incorporate that in my tag line!

[dbehsman]

Don’t worry about it. What’s a little bit of shrapnel between FReinds?

[KDD]

U.S. SUPREME COURT

CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990)

497 U.S. 261

JUSTICE O’CONNOR.

I agree that a protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions, and that the refusal of artificially delivered food and water is encompassed within that liberty interest. I write separately to clarify why I believe this to be so.

As the Court notes, the liberty interest in refusing medical treatment flows from decisions involving the State’s invasions into the body. Because our notions of liberty are inextricably entwined with our idea of physical freedom and self-determination, the Court has often deemed state incursions into the body repugnant to the interests protected by the Due Process Clause. Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has echoed this same concern. See Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 772 (1966) (”The integrity of an individual’s person is a cherished value of our society”); Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753, 759 (1985) (”A compelled surgical intrusion into an individual’s body for evidence . . . implicates expectations of privacy and security of such magnitude that the intrusion may be `unreasonable’ even if likely to produce evidence of a crime”).

The State’s imposition of medical treatment on an unwilling competent adult necessarily involves some form of restraint and intrusion. A seriously ill or dying patient whose wishes are not honored may feel a captive of the machinery required for life-sustaining measures or other medical interventions. Such forced treatment may burden that individual’s liberty interests as much as any state coercion. See, e.g., Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990); Parham v. J.R., 442 U.S. 584, 600 (1979) (”It is not disputed that a child, in common with adults, has a substantial liberty interest in not being confined unnecessarily for medical treatment”).

The State’s artificial provision of nutrition and hydration implicates identical concerns. Artificial feeding cannot readily be distinguished from other forms of medical treatment. See, e.g., Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, American Medical Association, AMA Ethical Opinion 2.20, Withholding or Withdrawing Life-Prolonging Medical Treatment, Current Opinions 13 (1989); The Hastings Center, Guidelines on the Termination of Life-Sustaining Treatment and the Care of the Dying 59 (1987). Whether or not the techniques used to pass food and water into the patient’s alimentary tract are termed “medical treatment,” it is clear they all involve some degree of intrusion and restraint. Feeding a patient by means of a nasogastric tube requires a physician to pass a long flexible tube through the patient’s [497 U.S. 261, 289] nose, throat and esophagus and into the stomach. Because of the discomfort such a tube causes, “[m]any patients need to be restrained forcibly, and their hands put into large mittens to prevent them from removing the tube.” Major, The Medical Procedures for Providing Food and Water: Indications and Effects, in By No Extraordinary Means: The Choice to Forgo Life-Sustaining Food and Water 25 (J. Lynn ed. 1986).

A gastrostomy tube (as was used to provide food and water to Nancy Cruzan, or jejunostomy tube must be surgically implanted into the stomach or small intestine. Requiring a competent adult to endure such procedures against her will burdens the patient’s liberty, dignity, and freedom to determine the course of her own treatment. Accordingly, the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause must protect, if it protects anything, an individual’s deeply personal decision to reject medical treatment, including the artificial delivery of food and water.

Rehnquist

O'Connor

Scalia

Kennedy

White

And unlike the U.S. Constitution which does not contain an explicit right to privacy, the Florida State Constitution in Section 23 does contain such a clause.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?Mode=Constitution&Submenu=3&Tab=statutes&CFID=15467598&CFTOKEN=87249157

SECTION 23. Right of privacy.—Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life except as otherwise provided herein. This section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.

And then there is 'In re Guardianship of Browning'.

Browning contained these instructions:

VIII. CONCLUSION We have previously held that competent and incompetent persons have the right to determine for themselves the course of their medical treatment. Today we hold that, without prior judicial approval, a surrogate or proxy, as provided here, may exercise the constitutional right of privacy for one who has become incompetent and who, while competent, expressed his or her wishes orally or in writing. We also determine that there is no legal distinction between gastrostomy or nasogastric feeding and any other means of life support. This case resolves a question of an individual’s constitutional right of self- determination. We are hopeful that this decision will encourage those who want their wishes to be followed to express their wishes clearly and completely.

For the reasons expressed above, we answer the certified question in the affirmative as qualified here and approve the decision of the district court.

It is so ordered.

SHAW, C.J., and EHRLICH, GRIMES and KOGAN, JJ., concur.

McDONALD, J., concurs with an opinion.

OVERTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

McDONALD, Justice, concurring.

Affrimed....

If I thought it was just ignorance of the law...in particular Fl. law that the delusional terribots suffer from then I might feel a little sympathy for them...But terribot ignorance and lies are just so massive that the only emotion I can muster toward them is contempt

As Terri’s surrogate, Michael had the power to discontinue treatment on his own lawful authority...He did not have to ask a Judge to intervene but did so out of respect for her parents wishes. The Schindlers kept the litigation in the courts once it was there and if Terri’s settlement had anything left after 10 years of Nursing Home care then the Schindlers forced the trust that was holding her funds to squander them them on the numerous appeals of the decisions against them.

Add to that the 10 million dollars Michael Schiavo turned down from a Pt. St. Lucie millionaire and another 3 million from another source, I am convinced that he took the high road in this case. Forced feeding is inhumane and unlawful in Fl. too, you know.

The courts said of Michaels treatment of his wife..this

Theresa Marie Schindler was born on December 3, 1963, and lived with or near her parents in Pennsylvania until she married Michael Schiavo on November 10, 1984. Michael and Theresa moved to Florida in 1986. They were happily married and both were employed. They had no children.

On February 25, 1990, their lives changed. Theresa, age 27, suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of a potassium imbalance. Michael called 911, and Theresa was rushed to the hospital. She never regained consciousness.

Since 1990, Theresa has lived in nursing homes with constant care. She is fed and hydrated by tubes. The staff changes her diapers regularly. She has had numerous health problems, but none have been life threatening.

The evidence is overwhelming that Theresa is in a permanent or persistent vegetative state. It is important to understand that a persistent vegetative state is not simply a coma. [FN1] She is not asleep. She has cycles of apparent wakefulness and apparent sleep without any cognition or awareness. As she breathes, she often makes moaning sounds. Theresa has severe contractures of her hands, elbows, knees, and feet.

Over the span of this last decade, Theresa's brain has deteriorated because of the lack of oxygen it suffered at the time of the heart attack. By mid 1996, the CAT scans of her brain showed a severely abnormal structure. At this point, much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid.

Medicine cannot cure this condition. Unless an act of God, a true miracle, were to recreate her brain, Theresa will always remain in an unconscious, reflexive state, totally dependent upon others to feed her and care for her most private needs. She could remain in this state for many years.

Theresa has been blessed with loving parents and a loving husband. Many patients in this condition would have been abandoned by friends and family within the first year. Michael has continued to care for her and to visit her all these years. He has never divorced her. He has become a professional respiratory therapist and works in a nearby hospital. As a guardian, he has always attempted to provide optimum treatment for his wife. He has been a diligent watch guard of Theresa's care, never hesitating to annoy the nursing staff in order to assure that she receives the proper treatment.

[pbmaltzman]

There was an earlier award, a settlement out of court, for $250,000. That money simply disappeared. We can guess who got it.

The doctor whose malpractice insurance coughed up the $250,000 was actually later cleared of all wrongdoing. In any case, it seems to have been a bogus claim.

There is so much about this case that just sickens me...

[RadioAstronomer]

Whoops. #287. Should have heeded my own advice. Bad for the blood pressure to argue with these folk.

[T'wit]

Say, that's swell cutting and pasting, KDD. And I like the nice red type.

If you're going to quote Cruzan, you should mention that in that case, SCOTUS found that "3.The Due Process Clause does not require a State to accept the 'substituted judgment' [surrogacy] of close family members in the absence of substantial proof that their views reflect the patient's." It therefore upheld the "clear and convincing" evidentiary rule -- the highest standard of proof available in civil actions -- for establishing the patient's own wishes. This is the whole basis for surrogacy or guardianship: the patient's informed consent under privacy rights.

Considerations of the patient's medical condition and prospects do NOT fall under the "clear and convincing" rule. The only question is the patient's own wish. Please observe that the findings you quote at such length do not address this question at all. They are quite therefore quite useless to the discussion.

[T'wit]

> LOL! You really are clueless.

Really neat argument :-)

[wagglebee]

The deathbots claim that Terri was a vegetable (brain dead). When a person is brain dead, they cannot feel pain, joy, anger, dignity, or anything. But then on the other hand, the deathbots claim that it is humiliating to Terri to keep her alive. If Terri was indeed brain dead, then how could she possibly feel humiliation?

Let's not forget that while they were killing Terri the culture of death was all over the place talking about how her manner of execution produced a "euphoric" state. How exactly does a "brain dead vegetable" experience euphoria?

[wagglebee]

Darwinian ethics

Ooh, look at that, a perfect oxymoron!

It produces "Hitlerian compassion" for the worthless eaters.

[wagglebee]

Really neat argument.

IIRC, RadioAstronomer's original argument back in post #9 was that none of this even happened.

[RadioAstronomer]

Gads why do I argue with the Terribots. Post # 9 was about her saying I want to live., I call bullshit on that.

[RadioAstronomer]

In all reality, Terri has long since left the collective conscience of the average US citizen. Other than a few folks on message boards and possibly a few groups here and there, most could care less or even remember who she is.

Like it or not, that is just the way it is.

I was already off of here but you all kept posting to me.

[T'wit]

>> I call *** on that.

Quit cursing in Free Republic.

[RadioAstronomer]

Get stuffed.