![]() |
| Home |
| Biography |
| Areas of Practice |
| Contact Info |
| Articles |
| Download Our Brochure |
|
The Terri Schiavo Tragedy By: Bruce Alan Danford, Esq. This article is not meant to advance the position taken by either the parents of Terri Schiavo nor her husband in this most tragic event. I certainly do not claim any theological or spiritual insight in the arguments advanced by either side. I do strongly advocate the premise that a recurrence of a situation similar to this need not occur in anyone else’s life, especially your life. Over the past several decades there has been a growing body of both statutory law (laws enacted by either a state legislature or the U.S. Congress) and case law (interpretation of the law or the Constitution by the Courts) as to whether or not and to what extent the refusal to accept medical treatment is effectively assisted suicide or not. The governing law is that the refusal to accept medical treatment is not assisted suicide and is entirely within the rights of an individual. Both statutory and case law have also continually upheld the right of an individual to decide his or her own medical treatment or right to refuse medical treatment. I cannot expound upon this any more eloquently and concisely than Supreme Court Chief Justice Rehnquist did in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269-270 (U.S. 1990). At common law, even the touching of one person by another without consent and without legal justification was a battery. Before the turn of the century, this Court observed that "no right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that informed consent is generally required for medical treatment. Justice Cardozo, while on the Court of Appeals of New York, aptly described this doctrine: "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body; and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault, for which he is liable in damages." The informed consent doctrine has become firmly entrenched in American tort law. The logical corollary of the doctrine of informed consent is that the patient generally possesses the right not to consent, that is, to refuse treatment. Until about 15 years ago and the seminal decision in In re Quinlan the number of right-to-refuse-treatment decisions was relatively few. Most of the earlier cases involved patients who refused medical treatment forbidden by their religious beliefs, thus implicating First Amendment rights as well as common-law rights of self-determination. More recently, however, with the advance of medical technology capable of sustaining life well past the point where natural forces would have brought certain death in earlier times, cases involving the right to refuse life-sustaining treatment have burgeoned. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269-270 (U.S. 1990) (Internal citations omitted.) An individual’s personal ethical, religious, or spiritual beliefs regarding these deeply personal matters are exactly that: theirs and theirs alone as it pertains to themselves. In short, the United States Supreme Court has upheld in several cases the right of an individual to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to accept medical treatment. The tragedy in the circumstances wasn’t that Terri Schiavo had made the decision to accept or decline medical treatment. The tragedy was she had not written her decisions down. Ms. Schiavo had not prepared a living will or a medical power of attorney expressing her wishes and desires. This left her parents, her husband, her friends, and her loved ones uncertain as to her wishes and desires. I have no great insight as to the motivations behind the acts of either party, the parents or the husband, in this matter. I do know some small modicum of dignity and privacy was denied her during the one period of Ms. Schiavo’s life when all of us should have some. It was denied both her and her family when different groups wishing to advance their own beliefs intruded into Ms. Schiavo’s life and ultimate death. Please read the following timeline and answer for yourself the following questions: Ø Do I want my family and friends to undergo such a horrific sequence of events spanning the better part of two decades? Ø What do I want to happen if I were in similar circumstances? Ø Who would I trust to enforce my decisions? Ø And most important of all, have I prepared the necessary documents, a living will and a medical power of attorney, to ensure neither I nor my family ever have to undergo such a protracted, exhausting chain of events? A living will and a medical power of attorney can be the greatest gift you ever give your loved ones. ___________________________________________________________________________ Timeline of the Terri Schiavo case (excerpted in part, from the AP story: Herald Tribune, Sarasota, FL, 10.15.03 and the timeline, Key Events in the Case of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Steven Haidar (Dartmouth College/University of Miami) and Kathy Cerminara (Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center). - Feb. 25, 1990: Terri Schiavo collapses in her home. Doctors believe a potassium imbalance caused her heart to stop, temporarily cutting off oxygen to her brain. - Nov. 1992: Terri's husband, Michael, wins malpractice suit that accused doctors of misdiagnosing his wife; jury awards more than more than $700,000 for her care, Michael receives an additional $300,000. - Feb. 14, 1993: Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, have a falling out with Michael over the malpractice suit money and Terri's care. - July 29, 1993: Bob and Mary Schindler file petition to have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri's guardian. The case is later dismissed. - May 1998: Michael Schiavo files petition to remove Terri's feeding tube. - Feb. 11, 2000: Circuit Judge George W. Greer rules feeding tube can be removed. - Jan. 24, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's decision. - March 29, 2001: Greer rules feeding tube to be removed April 20. - April 18, 2001: Florida Supreme Court refuses to intervene in the case. - April 20, 2001: U.S. District Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23 to exhaust appeals. - April 23, 2001: U.S. Supreme Court refuses to intervene. - April 24, 2001: Feeding tube is removed from Terri Schiavo. - April 26, 2001: Circuit Judge Frank Quesada orders doctors to reinsert Terri's feeding tube; the Schindlers pursue lawsuit against Michael Schiavo, accusing him of committing perjury by saying his wife did not want to be kept on life support. - April 30, 2001: Lawyers for Michael Schiavo file emergency motion with appellate court asking it to order removal of Terri's feeding tube. - July 11, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal sends case back to Judge Greer. - July 18, 2001: Schindlers ask Greer to let their doctors evaluate Terri before making a final decision on removing the feeding tube. - Aug. 10, 2001: Greer denies the Schindlers' evaluation request, as well as their request to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian. - Sept. 26, 2001: Schindlers' attorneys argue before 2nd District Court of Appeal, citing testimony from seven doctors who say Terri can recover with the right treatment. - Oct. 3, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal delays removal of feeding tube indefinitely. - Oct. 17, 2001: 2nd District Court of Appeal rules that five doctors can examine Terri to determine whether she has any hope of recovery. Two doctors are picked by the Schindlers, two are picked by Michael Schiavo and one is picked by the court. - Feb. 13, 2002: Mediation attempts fail; Michael Schiavo again seeks to be allowed to remove Terri's feeding tube. - Oct. 12, 2002: Weeklong hearing begins in the case. Three doctors, including the one appointed by the court, testify that Terri is in a persistent, vegetative state with no hope of recovery. The two doctors selected by the Schindlers say she can recover. - Nov. 12, 2002: The Schindlers' attorney says medical records suggest Terri's condition may have been brought on by physical abuse, and asks for more time to get more evidence. - Nov. 22, 2002: Judge Greer rules that there is no evidence that Terri has any hope of recovery and orders feeding tube to be removed Jan. 3, 2003. - Dec. 13, 2002: Judge Greer stays order to remove feeding tube on Jan. 3 until the 2nd District Court of Appeal reviews the case. - April 4, 2003: Schindlers' attorneys ask Second District Court of Appeal panel to "err on the side of life" and overturn Greer's ruling. - June 6, 2003: 2nd District Court of Appeal upholds Greer's ruling. - July 15, 2003: The 2nd District Court of Appeal refuses to rehear the case. - Aug. 22, 2003: The Florida Supreme Court declines to hear case. - Sept. 2, 2003: Schindlers take case to federal court seeking judicial intervention. - Sept. 17, 2003: Judge Greer sets Oct. 15 date for removal of tube. - Oct. 3, 2003: Attorney General Charlie Crist says he won't get involved in case. - Oct. 7, 2003: Gov. Jeb Bush files a federal court brief urging Terri Schiavo be kept alive. - Oct. 10, 2003: U.S. District Judge Lazzara rules he does not have jurisdiction to intervene in case. - Oct. 13, 2003: Protesters and Schindler family begin 24-hour vigil at Pinellas Park hospice where Terri Schiavo lives. - Oct. 14, 2003: 2nd District Court of Appeal again refuses to block tube removal; Schindler attorneys declare legal options exhausted. - Oct. 15, 2003: Doctors remove feeding tube; Bush pledges to search for possible legal options to resume feedings. - Oct. 20, 2003: The State of Florida's House of Representatives, vote 68-23 to give Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene and reinstate the feedings. - Oct. 21, 2003: The Florida Senate passes the same measure by a 23-15 vote. Governor Jeb Bush orders the feeding tube reinserted. - Oct. 23, 2003: The New York Times reports that legal scholars indicate that the Florida Legislature may have initiated a constitutional crisis. - Oct. 24, 2003: The ACLU announces that they will join the legal wrangling on the side of Michael Schiavo. The AARP says that they are also looking into the case. - Oct. 29, 2003: Michael Schiavo's attorneys file briefs stating that the law granting Governor Bush the power to reinstate Terri's feeding tube is unconstitutional - violating Terri's right to privacy as well as the separation of judicial and executive powers as set forth in the Florida State Constitution. Bush's lawyers immediately file a counter motion to have the suit thrown out on technical grounds. This motion is rejected. - Nov. 7, 2003: Though the Florida legislation provided for a new guardian (Dr. Jay Wolfson) for Terri, a judge rules that the Schindlers can seek to have either Terri's brother or sister appointed to this position. - Nov. 10, 2003: Bush files his appeal with the Second District Court in Lakeland, FL, resulting in a stay for the removal of the feeding tube. - Nov. 14, 2003: Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird lifts the stay, arguing that delaying the removal of Terri's feeding tube violates her right to privacy. In response, the Second District Court of Appeals issues an indefinite stay on the removal of the feeding tube. - Nov. 19, 2003: Governor Bush's legal team file briefs stating that a jury trial is necessary to determine whether Terri wishes to be kept alive via medical interventions. Bush also seeks to remove Judge Baird from the case. - Nov. 21, 2003: Florida
Senators 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.) - Jan. 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. - Jan. 28, 2005: An
attorney for the family of Terri Schiavo asked Greer to allow him to proceed
with a motion arguing that her due-process rights were violated because she has
never had her own attorney. - March 22, 2005: U.S.
District Judge James Whittemore refused to order the reinsertion of the tube.
The judge said the Schindlers failed to establish a "substantial
likelihood of success" on the merits of their arguments. The parents appealed
to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. |
© 2 0 0 2 - 2 0 0 7 K a p s a k L a w F i r m , L L C A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d. |