Steff Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...n_damaged_woman "...The Supreme Court refused Monday to reinstate a Florida law passed to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked to a feeding tube, clearing the way for it to be removed. How soon that would happen, however, was unclear."... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YASNY Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 QUOTE(Steff @ Jan 24, 2005 -> 10:47 AM) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...n_damaged_woman "...The Supreme Court refused Monday to reinstate a Florida law passed to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked to a feeding tube, clearing the way for it to be removed. How soon that would happen, however, was unclear."... The poor woman needs to be put out her misery. We are more humane to animals than we are to humans. We'll put and old dog to sleep before we'll pull the plug and a person that has no chance of recovery. "They shoot horses, don't they?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelasDaddy0427 Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 QUOTE(YASNY @ Jan 24, 2005 -> 10:51 AM) The poor woman needs to be put out her misery. We are more humane to animals than we are to humans. We'll put and old dog to sleep before we'll pull the plug and a person that has no chance of recovery. "They shoot horses, don't they?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. I could see if she had any sort of quality of life at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 24, 2005 Share Posted January 24, 2005 QUOTE(Jeckle2000 @ Jan 24, 2005 -> 02:29 PM) I agree. I could see if she had any sort of quality of life at all. I have to agree. After watching my grandparents here die, I don't want anyone to have to live through that kind of pain, knowing it isn't going to get better. My parents made the three of us promise that we would never put them on machines if there was no (or only slight) chance for improvement. I don't know if I will be strong enough when the time comes, but I hope I can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Well it's not surprising that I disagree. I seem to always be the one to present the macro view of these debates so I take a less personal (micro) approach. The first question I have to ask is what is the medical consensus opinion of her condition. If it is unanimous that it will never improve then I would say the decision lies with the closest living relative whether that be immediate family, distant family or just close friend. When there is no consensus hope then the people closest to her should have the final say. But if it is not unanimous & there are some in the medical community who believe her condition can be improved then I say the state has the right to protect her right to life. I do not know the particulars in this case, but the obvious general questions come to mind: 1) Is there progress being made in a field that would help her case? 2) What is the likelihood of her condition improving in the next year, the next 3 yrs, or the next 5 yrs? 3) How old is she & how does her age affect her condition? Generally speaking where there is hope for improvement of life the state should protect that right to life against individuals who do not share that hope. What determines whether such hope exists are trained professionals in that field of science or healthcare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 Maybe you should read then. Quite frankly, I can't see how you can post an educated opinion without reading the facts.. Regardless.. There is no hope for her. Her brain is mush. The brain doesn't "grow back". It was her desire not to be assisted to survive. She stated this to many people in her short life. They testified to that fact. Many, many, doctors over the past severl years have testified that she will not imporve. The feeding tube has been removed twice only to be shoved back down her throat thanks to Jeb Bush. This woman has no quality of life. And nothing can be done to regain it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 25, 2005 Author Share Posted January 25, 2005 This is an excellent timeline to her case. http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm KEY EVENTS IN THE CASE OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO Steven Haidar, Dartmouth College/University of Miami Kathy Cerminara, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center This content may be reproduced for non-commercial, education purposes only, with appropriate attribution to the source. (For more information, read our copyright policy.) Please send comments, suggestions and corrections to Ken Goodman, UM Ethics Programs, at [email protected]. News media and others seeking comment from Florida Bioethics Network leaders should call 305-243-5723. Timeline December 3, 1963 Theresa (Terri) Marie Schiavo is born. Novermber 1984 Terri and Michael Schiavo are married. February 25, 1990 Terri Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest; doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart attack, which led to brain damage due to lack of oxygen. She was taken to the Humana Northside Hospital where she was given a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) to provide nutrition and hydration. May 12, 1990 Terri Schiavo is discharged from the hospital and taken to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility. June 18, 1990 Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo’s parents do not object. June 30, 1990 Terri Schiavo is transferred to Bayfront Hospital for further rehabilitation efforts. September 1990 Terri Schiavo’s family brings her home, but three weeks later they return her to the College Park facility because the family is “overwhelmed by Terri’s care needs.” November 1990 Michael Schiavo takes Terri Schiavo to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain. January 1991 The Schiavos return to Florida; Terri Schiavo is moved to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon where she receives 24-hour care. July 19, 1991 Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994. May 1992 Terri Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Michael Schiavo stop living together. August 1992 Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians. November 1992 The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care. February 14, 1993 Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers have a falling-out over the course of therapy for Terri Schiavo; Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers demand that he share the malpractice money with them. July 29, 1993 Schindlers attempt to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo’s guardian; the court later dismisses the suit. March 1, 1994 First guardian ad litem, John H. Pecarek, submits his report. He states that Michael Schiavo has acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri Schiavo. May 1998 Michael Schiavo petitions the court to authorize the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube; the Schindlers oppose, saying that Terri would want to remain alive. The court appoints Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as the second guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo. December 20, 1998 The second guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, Esq., issues his report in which he concluding that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement and that Michael Schiavo’s decision-making may be influenced by the potential to inherit the remainder of Terri Schiavo’s estate. January 24, 2000 The trial begins; Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Court Judge George Greer presides. Testimony of Father Gerard Murphy February 11, 2000 Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to have the PEG tube removed, and therefore he orders it removed, which, according to doctors, will cause her death in approximately 7 to 14 days. March 2, 2000 The Schindlers file a petition with Judge Greer to allow “swallowing” tests to be performed on Terri Schiavo to determine if she can consume—or learn to consume—nutrients on her own. March 7, 2000 Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ petition to perform “swallowing” tests on Terri Schiavo. March 24, 2000 Judge Greer grants Michael Schiavo’s petition to limit visitation to Terri Schiavo as well as to bar pictures. Judge Greer also stays his order until 30 days beyond the final exhaustion of all appeals by the Schindlers. 3-24-00 Greer Stay and Order Limiting Visitation January 24, 2001 Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal (2nd DCA) upholds Judge Greer’s ruling that permits the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. In re Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (2nd DCA 2001), rehearing denied (Feb. 22, 2001), review denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001). (Case No.: SC01-559) 1-24-01 DCA Ruling February 22, 2001 The Schindler family’s motion for an Appellate Court rehearing is denied. March 12, 2001 Michael Schiavo petitions Judge Greer to lift his stay, issued March 24, 2000, in order to permit the removal of Terri Shiavo’s PEG tube. March 29, 2001 Judge Greer denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to lift stay issued on March 24, 2000; Michael Schiavo can remove Terri’s PEG tube at 1 p.m. on April 20. 3-29-01 Greer Order April 10, 2001 The 2nd DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion to extend Judge Greer’s stay, which is scheduled to expire April 20, 2001. 4-10-01 DCA Order April 12, 2001 The Schindlers file a motion requesting that Judge Greer recuse himself. April 12, 2001 The Schindlers petition the Florida Supreme Court to stay the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. 4-12-01 Motion for Stay Part 1 4-12-01 Motion for Stay Part 2 4-12-01 Court’s Request for Response from Schiavo April 16, 2001 Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ motion to recuse himself. April 18, 2001 The Florida Supreme Court chooses not to review the decision of the 2nd DCA. In re Schiavo, 789 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2001). Case No.: SC01-559 3-22-01 Schindler family’s Notice to Appeal to Supreme Court 3-30-01 Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 1 3-30-01 Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 2 4-18-01 Order Denying Rehearing and Motion for Stay April 20, 2001 Federal District Court Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23, 2001, to exhaust all their possible appeals. April 23, 2001 Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court refuses to stay the case for a review by that Court. April 24, 2001 By order of trial court Judge Greer, and upon issuance of a 2nd DCA mandate, Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is removed April 26, 2001 The Schindlers file an emergency motion with Judge Greer for relief from judgment based upon new evidence, which includes a claim that a former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo will testify that he lied about Terri Schiavo’s wishes; Judge Greer dismisses the motion as untimely. Also on this date, the Schindlers file a new civil suit that claims that Michael Schiavo perjured himself when he testified that Terri Schiavo had stated an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending this new civil trial, Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada orders Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube to be reinserted. April 30, 2001 Michael Schiavo files an emergency motion with the 2nd DCA to allow the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. May 9, 2001 The 2nd DCA announces a date for the hearing of oral arguments regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001. June 25, 2001 Arguments in 2nd DCA regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001. July 11, 2001 The 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer. (1) The 2nd DCA informs the Schindlers that they must address both their desire to have new evidence heard and their perjury claim against Michael Schiavo within the original guardianship proceeding; further, the Schindlers are instructed to file a new motion for relief from judgment in the guardianship proceeding. (2) The 2nd DCA instructs Judge Greer to weigh the Schinders’ new evidence in making a new determination of what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. (3) The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s request to discontinue the PEG tube. In re Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551 (2nd DCA 2001). 7-11-01 DCA Order August 7, 2001 After the 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer, he again finds that Michael Schiavo may remove Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube on August 28. August 10, 2001 Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motion (1) to have their own doctors examine Terri Schiavo, (2) to remove Michael Schiavo as her guardian, and (3) to disqualify himself from the proceedings. August 17, 2001 Judge Greer delays the removal of Terri Schiavo's PEG tube until October 9 in order to allow the Schindlers time to appeal. October 3, 2001 The 2nd DCA delays the removal of the PEG tube indefinitely. October 17, 2001 The 2nd DCA rules that 5 doctors should examine Terri Schiavo to determine if she can improve with new medical treatment. The Schindlers and Michael Schiavo are to choose 2 doctors each, and the court is to appoint a doctor. The appeals court also affirms Greer’s denial of the motion to disqualify himself. In re Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (2nd DCA 2001). 10-17-01 DCA ruling November 1, 2001 The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to rehear the case. December 14, 2001 Michael Schiavo petitions the Florida Supreme Court to stay the October 17, 2001 ruling of the 2nd DCA. He states that he and the Schindlers will attempt to mediate the dispute in lieu of further litigation. 12-05-01 Michael Schiavo’s Notice of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court 12-14-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Stay DCA’s Ruling. December 19, 2001 Attorneys meet with a mediator to determine which tests doctors should run on Terri Schiavo. January 10, 2002 State Supreme Court stays all legal proceedings pending mediation; it orders attorneys to report on the status of mediation in sixty days. 1-10-02 SC Order of Stay February 13, 2002 Mediation between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo fails. 2-13-02 Notice that Mediation failed March 14, 2002 The Florida Supreme Court denies Michael Schiavo’s petition to review the 2nd DCA’s ruling allowing 5 doctors to examine Terri Schiavo. In re Schiavo, 816 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2002) (Table, No. SC01-2678) 2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Jurisdictional Petition 2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Petition to Stay ruling of 2nd DCA (10/17/01). 2-22-02 Court’s Order of Stay pending its final decision 3-01-02 Schindler’s Jurisdictional Brief 3-13-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Strike 3-14-01 Order Denying Schiavo’s Petition 3-14-01 Order to Strike October 12-22, 2002 The trial court holds a new hearing on new potential medical treatments. November 15, 2002 The Schindlers contend that Michael Schiavo might have abused Terri Schiavo and this abuse led to her condition. They ask the court for more time to collect evidence, and to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian. 11-15-02 Petition to remove MS as guardian November 22, 2002 Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube should be removed January 3, 2003. In re Schiavo, 2002 WL 31817960 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002) (No. 90-2908-GB-003) Nov22 2002 TC trialctorder11-02.txt December 13, 2002 Judge Greer stays his November 22 ruling: Terri Schiavo should not have her PEG tube removed until an appeals court can rule on the case. December 23, 2002 The 2nd DCA denies a motion Michael Schiavo filed seeking permission to remove the PEG tube. June 6, 2003 The 2nd DCA, affirming Judge Greer’s November 2002 ruling, concludes that Michael Schiavo can remove Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube on October 15. In re Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D02-5394), rehearing denied (July 9, 2003), review denied 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003). 6-06-03 Court Opinion July 9, 2003 The 2nd DCA refuses to reconsider its decision. August 22, 2003 The Florida Supreme Court declines to review the decision. Schindler v. Schiavo, 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003) (Table, No. SC03-1242) 7-24-03 Notice of Schindlers' Appeal 7-31-03 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Vacate Court Order denying Motion to Vacate 8-07-03 Schindler's Petition for a Supreme Court Review 8-13-03 Michael Shiavo’s Response to Petition for Review 8-18-03 Schindlers motion for a Stay 8-19-03 Court Orders Schiavo to make a Respond for the Motion for Stay 8-20-03 Shiavo’s Response to Motion for Stay 8-22-03 Court Order denying Review and Motion for Stay August 30, 2003 Terri Schiavo’s parents file a federal lawsuit challenging the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. Schiavos’ petition (D). Schindler v. Schiavo, Civil Action No. 8:03-CV-1860-T-26-T-TGW September 17, 2003 Judge Greer orders the removal of the PEG tube to take place on October 15, 2003. He also rejects the Schindlers’ request that Terri Schiavo be given therapy to learn how to eat without the tube. 9-17-03 Court Order October 7, 2003 Governor Jeb Bush files a federal court brief in support of the Schindlers’ effort to stop the removal of the PEG tube. October 10, 2003 Federal Court Judge Richard Lazzara rules that he lacks the jurisdiction to hear the federal case. October 14, 2003 The 2nd DCA refuses to block Judge Greer’s order to remove the PEG tube. October 15, 2003 Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is once again removed. October 17, 2003 The Florida Circuit Court in Pinellas County and the First District Court of Appeal refuse to grant a request made by the “supporters” of the Schindlers to direct Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case. October 19, 2003 The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. files a federal court lawsuit that claims that the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is abuse and neglect. Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, No. 8:03-CV-2167-T-23EAJ October 20, 2003 The Florida House of Representatives passes a bill, “Terri’s Law,” that allows the governor to issue a “one-time stay in certain cases.” HouseBill35-E.pdf October 21, 2003 The Florida Senate passes the bill; Governor Bush issues an executive order directing reinsertion of the PEG tube and appointing a guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo. Schiavo Controversy Fla_ Gov_ Exec_ Order No_ 03-201.htm Statements by some House members October 21, 2003 Michael Schiavo files a state-court lawsuit arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional and seeking an injunction to stop the reinsertion of the PEG tube; the court requests briefs on the Constitutional arguments about “Terri’s Law.” 10-21-03 Schiavo Injunction Amicus Brief from House Speaker Byrd (B) Schiavo v. Bush. No. 03-008212-CI-20 (Cir. Ct. Pinellas County, Florida). October 21, 2003 The federal court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order filed in the lawsuit of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, 2003 WL 23305833, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2003). 10-21-03 US District Court Order October 21, 2003 Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is reinserted. October 22 2003 David Demeres, Chief Judge for the Pinellas County Circuit Court, orders both the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo to agree within 5 days on an independent guardian ad litem as required under the Governor’s order. (“Terri’s Law” directs: “Upon issuance of the stay, the chief judge of the circuit court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the patient to make recommendations to the Governor and the court.”) Schiavo's Response Schindlers' Response October 28, 2003 President George W. Bush praises the way his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, has handled the Schiavo matter. Transcript of Rose Garden Press Conference October 29, 2003 Michael Schiavo files court papers in his state-court lawsuit, arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union has joined Michael Schiavo. Michael Schiavo petitioner brief October 31, 2003 Judge Demers appoints Dr. Jay Wolfson as Terri Schiavo’s guardian ad litem. Dr. Wolfson holds both medical and legal degrees; he is also a public health professor at the University of South Florida. He is supposed to represent Terri Schiavo’s best interest in court, but he has no authority to make decisions for her. 10-31-03 GAL Appointment November 4, 2003 Governor Jeb Bush asks Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird to dismiss Michael Schiavo’s suit (filed October 21, 2003) that challenges “Terri’s Law.” November 8, 2003 Judge Baird denies Governor Bush’s motion to dismiss the state-court suit. November 10, 2003 Governor Bush appeals Judge Baird’s decision; the filing of the appeal has the effect of staying the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. November 14, 2003 Judge Baird vacates the stay. 11-14-03 Order vacating stay. November 14, 2003 In response to Judge Baird’s lifting the stay, the 2nd DCA issues an indefinite stay. November 19, 2003 Governor Bush files a petition to remove Judge Baird. 11-19-03 Petition November 21, 2003 Florida Sens. Stephen Wise and Jim Sebesta introduce legislation (S692) that would require persons in persistent vegetative states to be administered medically supplied nutrition and hydration in the absence of a living will, regardless of family beliefs about what those patients would have wanted. The measure is withdrawn from consideration on April 16, 2004. Bill to require sustenence when no living will exists December 1, 2003 Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, concludes in his report that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement. Wolfson's Report Governor Bush's response to Wolfson's report December 10, 2003 The 2nd DCA refuses to remove Judge Baird, who is the presiding judge in the state-court lawsuit filed October 21, 2003. Bush v. Schiavo, 861 So. 2d 506 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D03-5244) 12-10-03 Court Opinion January 5, 2004 The Schindler family petitions the Pinellas County Circuit Court to reappoint Jay Wolfson, the guardian ad litem. 1-05-04 Schindlers petition to reappoint GAL January 8, 2004 Judge Demers rejects the request to reappoint the guardian ad litem, citing the pending court decisions over the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law” as reason to wait on any action. 1-08-04 Order denying reinstatement of GAL February 13, 2004 The 2nd DCA reverses Judge Baird’s ruling (in the case filed October 21, 2003) that denied the Schindlers permission to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s Constitutional challenge to “Terri’s Law.” The 2nd DCA explains that Judge Baird did not follow proper procedure. The court also gives permission to Governor Bush to question several witnesses who Judge Baird previously had ruled could not offer any relevant testimony. Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004) (on intervention); 866 So. 2d 136 (2nd DCA 2004) (on request to take depositions). (Case No. 2D03-5783). bushschiavo2 13 04 opn.pdf 2-13-04 Opinion allowing parents to intervene March 12, 2004 Judge Baird again rejects the Schindlers’ request to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s suit that questions the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law.” March 20, 2004 Pope John Paul II addresses World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and Pontifical Academy for Life Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas." His remarks spark widespread interest and controversy. Pope's address March 29, 2004 Nursing home workers discover 4 “fresh puncture wounds” on one arm and a fifth wound on the other arm; the workers state that a hypodermic needle appears to have caused the wounds. Attendants discovered the wounds shortly after the Schindlers visited Terri Schiavo for 45 minutes. Toxicology reports indicate that no substance was injected into Terri Schiavo. Clearwater police later conclude that the marks might have been made by a device used to move Ms. Schiavo and, in any case, that no evidence of abuse or other wrongdoing could be found. St. Petersburg Times report (May 15, 2004) March 29, 2004 Judge Greer denies a motion filed by the Schindlers seeking to have Michael Schiavo defend himself in a hearing; they allege that he is violating a 1996 court order that requires him to share a sufficient amount of Terri Schiavo’s medical information. Michael Schiavo claims that he has shared an adequate amount of information through attorneys. April 16, 2004 S692 is withdrawn from consideration in the Florida Legislature. S692 History April 23, 2004 The 2nd DCA rules that the Pinellas County trial court has jurisdiction to hear and is the proper venue for the case Michael Schiavo has filed against Governor Bush asserting that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional. 2nd DCA Jurisdictional ruling May 6, 2004 Pinellas Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird rules that "Terri's Law," sought and signed by Gov. Bush and approved by the Legislature on October 21, 2003, is unconstitutional. The governor appeals the ruling. Judge Baird's order June 1, 2004 The 2nd DCA grants a motion from attorneys for Michael Schiavo to send the case directly to the Florida Supreme Court and bypass a lower-court review. Meanwhile, attorneys for Gov. Bush file a motion asking that all appeals be halted until the issue of whether Michael Schiavo has the authority to fight the governor on his wife's behalf is resolved. Tallahassee Democrat report June 16, 2004 Florida's Supreme Court, pointing to "a question of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court," accepts jurisdiction and sets oral arguments for August 31, 2004. Florida Supreme Court order June 30, 2004 2nd DCA affirms Judge Baird's March 12 ruling denying the Schindlers the ability to intervene in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of "Terri's Law." July 19, 2004 The Schindlers file a motion in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County seeking relief from judgment in Schindler v. Schiavo. Based in part upon the recent statement by Pope John Paul II, they argue that the orders mandating withdrawal of the PEG tube from Terri and authorizing Michael to challenge the constitutionality of "Terri's Law" violate her "free exercise of her religious beliefs [and] her right to enjoy and defend her own life and, in fact, imperil her immortal soul." Relief from judgment motion Appendix to motion (seven exhibits) July 27, 2004 National group of bioethicists files amicus brief "in support of Michael Schiavo as guardian of the person." Bioethicists' amicus brief August 31, 2004 The Florida Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of "Terri's Law." Streaming video of the proceedings, archived by WFSU at Florida State University Transcript St. Petersburg Times report August 31, 2004 Circuit Judge George Greer, opposed for re-election by an attorney who was known to oppose Greer's rulings in the Schiavo case, is re-elected by a large margin. St. Petersburg Times report September 23, 2004 Florida's Supreme Court, unanimously affirming the trial court order, declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional. Supreme Court ruling October 4, 2004 Governor Bush files a motion and then an amended motion for rehearing and clarification of the Florida Supreme Court opinion issued on September 23, 2004 Amended motion for rehearing and clarification October 21, 2004 Florida Supreme Court denies Governor Bush's amended motion for rehearing and clarification, as well as a motion seeking permission to file a second amended motion for rehearing and clarification. The Court issues a mandate. Order October 22, 2004 In Pinellas County, at the trial-court level, Judge Greer denies the motion filed by the Schindlers on July 19, 2004. He also stays the removal of her PEG tube until December 6, 2004. Order Denying Motion Order Granting Stay October 25, 2004 Governor Bush files a motion with the Florida Supreme Court asking that it recall the mandate it issued on October 22 because he will be filing a petition for certiorari regarding this case with the United States Supreme Court. Motion to Recall Mandate Appendix to Motion October 27, 2004 Florida Supreme Court grants Governor Bush's motion asking that it recall the mandate issued on October 22. Proceedings in the trial and all appellate courts in the case of Bush v. Schiavo are stayed until November 29, 2004. Order Recalling Mandate November 22, 2004 In the guardianship proceeding in Pinellas County, the Schindlers appeal from Judge Greer’s October 22 order denying their motion for relief from judgment. Brief Seeking Review December 3, 2004 Governor Bush files a petition for certiorari, seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision regarding Terri’s law, with the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. Supreme Court Docket Petition for Writ of Certiorari December 29, 2004 2nd DCA, without opinion, denies the Schindlers' November 22 appeal from Judge Greer's order refusing to reopen the guardianship proceeding. Last updated 06-Jan-2005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 Maybe you should read then. Quite frankly, I can't see how you can post an educated opinion without reading the facts.. Regardless.. There is no hope for her. Her brain is mush. The brain doesn't "grow back". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's simple. I generalize the argument to where the facts don't mean as much as the principles. I read nothing in your timeline that presents a unanimous opinion that her condition will never improve. The issue is not whether her brain cells will grow back. The issue is whether new technologies interfacing with her existing brain centers will improve her life. I can provide you links within sciencedaily.com which discuss these technologies extensively. Generally speaking (AGAIN!) and with respect to right to life as defined in the US Constitution if her situation is not deterioriating & there hope exists for an improved condition (nothing in your timeline suggests anything to the contrary) then the state has an obligation to uphold her right to life. Until the state of FL passes a law making Euthanasia legal it matters not what her implied consent was. Of course any passage of a Euthanasia law would probably be challenged as unconstitutional & would require an amendment for such actions to be considered legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I thought that since I've been sort of a part of a similar situation that I would comment. Really, the main thing is it's really easy now to say that if you were in a similar situation as this family you could "put someone out of their misery." But when you're really in that situation, it's not so easy. My aunt was in a vegetative state and although I didn't really have power over whether or not to keep her alive, I am close to my uncle and cousins who did have to consider it. The point is every eye blink, every slight movement, every time she seemed to recognize what was going on, you had some hope that maybe she would get better. Even though every doctor told you different, you hoped and prayed for a miracle. The point is I loved and adored my aunt dearly and I couldn't even imagine making that decision which is why my uncle never did. Anyway, just thought I'd say something about it since I sort of know what it's like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 There is something very interesting in your timeline: October 17, 2001 The 2nd DCA rules that 5 doctors should examine Terri Schiavo to determine if she can improve with new medical treatment. The Schindlers and Michael Schiavo are to choose 2 doctors each, and the court is to appoint a doctor. From that point on I do not see any reference to the 5 doctors. What I see is a repeated process by which The Schindlers file motions to stay the removal of the tube so that they can have tests performed to determine if there is any hope for improvement. At the same time there is a repeated process by Schiavo to prevent this from happening & to kill her immediately. Now maybe I'm just more good natured than the rest of you but it seems to me the woman is still alive now 4 yrs after this ordeal began & I haven't read a think about her conditioning worsening. So again thinking along the lines of protecting life & nurturing life I would think it's in the state's best interest to exhaust every avenue possible to improving her life before terminating it. At the very least allow the 5 doctor study to happen & live by the majority consensus thereof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queen Prawn Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I've been in that position as well (I had to watch my gramma, my mom and aunts make the decision). My grampa fell into a coma after a stroke (it was a combo of a stroke and gangreen (sp?)) and there was virtually no chance of recover due to the gangreen. My mom and I visited at least once a week in those three months. It killed me to see him like that - crying from the pain and knowing there was a f***ing thing anyone could do about it. There was a DNR in place so some of the choices were minor comparing to when we (being the oldest grandchild I was included on that decision) had to decide to take my gramma off of life supports. She had a DNR but it was misfiled by the nursing home so the paramedics put her on life supports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 I thought that since I've been sort of a part of a similar situation that I would comment. Really, the main thing is it's really easy now to say that if you were in a similar situation as this family you could "put someone out of their misery." But when you're really in that situation, it's not so easy. My aunt was in a vegetative state and although I didn't really have power over whether or not to keep her alive, I am close to my uncle and cousins who did have to consider it. The point is every eye blink, every slight movement, every time she seemed to recognize what was going on, you had some hope that maybe she would get better. Even though every doctor told you different, you hoped and prayed for a miracle. The point is I loved and adored my aunt dearly and I couldn't even imagine making that decision which is why my uncle never did. Anyway, just thought I'd say something about it since I sort of know what it's like. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Knowing how rapidly nanotech is progressing if I were put into a vegetative state & my condition was not deteriorating and remained stable I would want to remain alive. How do they know she can not dream? We dream subconsciously sometimes at levels which can not be detected. Clinical research has proven this to be true. Who has the right to terminate another's dreams? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 05:54 PM) Knowing how rapidly nanotech is progressing if I were put into a vegetative state & my condition was not deteriorating and remained stable I would want to remain alive. How do they know she can not dream? We dream subconsciously sometimes at levels which can not be detected. Clinical research has proven this to be true. Who has the right to terminate another's dreams? So research can detect something that cannot be detected? How does that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 05:54 PM) We dream subconsciously sometimes at levels which can not be detected. Clinical research has proven this to be true. Cite your source. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POTUSChris Posted January 25, 2005 Share Posted January 25, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 06:54 PM) Knowing how rapidly nanotech is progressing if I were put into a vegetative state & my condition was not deteriorating and remained stable I would want to remain alive. How do they know she can not dream? We dream subconsciously sometimes at levels which can not be detected. Clinical research has proven this to be true. Who has the right to terminate another's dreams? They tried some of that technology on my aunt. She started to show some improvement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 So research can detect something that cannot be detected? How does that work? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You really need to ask? You create a control group of 100 or so persons. You connect to monitors to record their dream activity. You then INTERVIEW them about their dream activity you compare that to the activity of the monitors. They mention dreams that show little to no activity on the monitors. You determine how many such cases exist in the control group. You then determine whether it is a significant number. If it's a significant number you conclude that there are dream states that can not be recorded. Duh! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 06:06 PM) You really need to ask? You create a control group of 100 or so persons. You connect to monitors to record their dream activity. You then INTERVIEW them about their dream activity you compare that to the activity of the monitors. They mention dreams that show little to no activity on the monitors. You determine how many such cases exist in the control group. You then determine whether it is a significant number. If it's a significant number you conclude that there are dream states that can not be recorded. Duh! First of all, and again, cite your source. If it works for people that have consciousness how do we know it is the same for people that do not have consciousness? My dog dreams? Does that mean she has consciousness? And just for the record, consciousness and that Freudian lingo went out with Watson and the behaviorists... Second of all, we don't even know WHAT dreaming is. Is it random neurons firing? Is it simply a way that we condense memories? People can't even agree on what type of neurological underpinnings dreams have--so I would be lothe to accept an argument that they are the basis of what it means to be a human. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What does anything you said have to do with this woman's right to live? In response to one sarcastic & mundane question I explained how scientific method works. In response to your post I see a statement supporting the hypothesis that even with her being in a canotonic state she might still be experiencing dreams because in your opinion we don't know enough about them to rule that possibility out. So what is the point in continuing this? It seems to me since the debate centers around whether to pull the plug on this woman you have simply advocated a reason not to do it. In that respect I agree with you. As to the source, check out sciencedaily.com & put in "detecting dream activity". There are too many for me to list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 06:25 PM) In response to one sarcastic & mundane question I explained how scientific method works. In response to your post I see a statement supporting the hypothesis that even with her being in a canotonic state she might still be experiencing dreams because in your opinion we don't know enough about them to rule that possibility out. Wait, tell me more about the scientific method.... But to argue the fact that she might, on the off chance, be dreaming is much more of a reach than I am proposing...In fact, whether she might be dreaming is untestable due to her catatonic state, so I would argue that is not a real hypothesis because it can't be tested. And I am WELL aware of how brain activity/dreaming are measured and understood. I have set up a fair share of EEGs and read them as well. However, I have never seen any compelling evidence that the normal subjects we use in those experiments will even REMOTELY translate into a person with such severe brain damage. For any such evidence to count for your arguement, you need to demonstrate to me that such evidence can be found. I don't buy that you can generalize normals to someone in a catatonic state... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JUGGERNAUT Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 I don't buy that you can generalize normals to someone in a catatonic state... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I did not suggest you can. I simply stated there exists the possibility that she may be experiencing dreams in her state. There exists no evidence to rule that out. That's all I'm saying. As I have stated more than once the key to this specific case for me is that there is no mention of her state deteriorating. So I conclude it must be stable. With that being the case the state should exhaust every path possible to determining if there is any hope for her condition. I think the appointment of a medical review board to achieve a consensus opinion on that is the proper path to take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 05:31 PM) It's simple. I generalize the argument to where the facts don't mean as much as the principles. I read nothing in your timeline that presents a unanimous opinion that her condition will never improve. The issue is not whether her brain cells will grow back. The issue is whether new technologies interfacing with her existing brain centers will improve her life. I can provide you links within sciencedaily.com which discuss these technologies extensively. Generally speaking (AGAIN!) and with respect to right to life as defined in the US Constitution if her situation is not deterioriating & there hope exists for an improved condition (nothing in your timeline suggests anything to the contrary) then the state has an obligation to uphold her right to life. Until the state of FL passes a law making Euthanasia legal it matters not what her implied consent was. Of course any passage of a Euthanasia law would probably be challenged as unconstitutional & would require an amendment for such actions to be considered legal. I aggree with doing all that can be done IF there's a chance at imporvment.. but the woman did NOT want to live a life on life support. 9 people OTHER than her husband testified so. After 4 years there is NO improvment. She is still the same Terry she was when she came out of the coma. The ONLY thing keeping her alive is the feeding tube. She did NOT want that kind of life. I don't see what is so hard to understand. Provide all the links you want.. my opinion.. it doesn't matter. Her decision should be the final one. IMO, it's extremely selfish of her family to keep her alive in the state she is in when she was specific in stating it's not what she wanted. And by the way, it's not "my" timeline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 05:54 PM) Who has the right to terminate another's dreams? And who has the right to go against ones wishes..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Jan 25, 2005 -> 06:25 PM) What does anything you said have to do with this woman's right to live? In response to one sarcastic & mundane question I explained how scientific method works. In response to your post I see a statement supporting the hypothesis that even with her being in a canotonic state she might still be experiencing dreams because in your opinion we don't know enough about them to rule that possibility out. So what is the point in continuing this? It seems to me since the debate centers around whether to pull the plug on this woman you have simply advocated a reason not to do it. In that respect I agree with you. As to the source, check out sciencedaily.com & put in "detecting dream activity". There are too many for me to list. What does anything you've said have to do with it...? The debate centers around a family not respecting their daughters wishes plain and simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 26, 2005 Share Posted January 26, 2005 On one hand a husband who stand to inherit the money and is free to marry his girlfriend without losing his status as guardian? On the other, parents who conceived and raised her. Who do you want making the decision regarding your life? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 26, 2005 Author Share Posted January 26, 2005 QUOTE(Texsox @ Jan 26, 2005 -> 09:15 AM) On one hand a husband who stand to inherit the money and is free to marry his girlfriend without losing his status as guardian? On the other, parents who conceived and raised her. Who do you want making the decision regarding your life? No $$ Tex. It's all gone. Used for her care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.