NOTE: Click
*_HERE_* to see the cases of two other women, given up for dead, but who were able to hear doctors talk about starving them.
IMPORTANT: To see updates in Terri Schiavo's case, please click *_HERE_* to get to the front page, and see the Court Cases web page and other resources. NOTE: There is **one** update on this page. Below, where The Register talks about the talented USA Today writer,
Richard Willing, The Register also mentions that the Supreme Court of Florida has refused, even after much examination of the our editor's high-profile case, to dismiss it.
Analysis of “Terri’s Law:” Is constitutional?
Schiavo
for non-profit use.
(Thank you.)
*
Were Courts legally allowed to remove food and water from Terri Schiavo?
* Bush
was wrong in allegation he lacked legal authority to intervene - right?
*
Analysis of “Terri’s Law:” Is constitutional?
Q:
Were courts legally allowed to remove food and water from Terri Schiavo?
A:
“Yes and no.” -- “Yes,” current law, s. 765.309, as defined by s. 765.101 (10),
allows “life-prolonging” procedures, such as a feeding tube to be withdrawn,
and then only in certain circumstances, some of which are in dispute, including
what Terri Schiavo’s wishes were. “No,” this does not mean regular food and
water. Whether or not Terri could eat is moot. The withdrawal of “regular” food
(starvation) and water (dehydration) is illegal, and also repulsive to a great
many citizens. Starvation and dehydration constitute Mercy Killing, a violation
of s. 765.309, if the person was intent on dying, and a violation of s.
782.051, Attempted Felony Murder, if the participant was unwilling.
Additionally, s. 782.08, Assisting Self-Murder, may
have been violated, assuming Terri wanted to kill herself and the hospice
workers, court, or police assisted. There is probably case law in the area of
civil recompensation, which suggests that, if the hospice was responsible for
Terri losing her ability to eat (by arbitrarily inserting a feeding tube, for
example), that it couldn’t remove food and water without first trying to
restore (recompensate) that ability through therapy. (Arguably, the US Constitutional right to
“Life,
CAVEAT: As of today, Friday, 31 October 2003, I have just
viewed a brief by Pat Anderson, Schindler family attorney, in which she claims
that the courts did not order the withholding of regular food and water, as I
have previously claimed, and do so here, so, when I make these claims below, it
is with the caveat that new information shows it may not be true, but I will
leave in these sections due to the uncertainty on this point.
Q:
Bush was wrong in allegation he lacked legal authority to intervene - right?
A:
If a series of court rulings were to say that you and I could go on a shooting spree,
would it be right? “No,” however, more relevant to the discussion, it would
also *not* be legal, and doing so would authorize, if not mandate, the local
police to arrest us - and then charge us with crimes, and if the Police Chief
did not, then the mayor might fire him, or the Governor might order the FDLE to
investigate and charge him, period. Euthanasia aka “Mercy Killing” is also not
legal, and attempts by Dr. Jack Kevorkian and, more recently, rock band “Hell
on Earth” to stage a mercy killing, were threatened with arrest and then
criminal charges, period. The court’s recent ruling, claiming that mercy
killing by withholding food and water were legal, should have been ignored by
the Police, and, in fact, such actions could get a state judge investigated by
the Judicial Qualifications Commission in Tallahassee and heard before the
Florida Supreme Court. Theoretically, federal charges of treason or plotting
against the government could be brought, but these would require a showing of
intent, not merely lack of judicial fitness. The current law only allows
“life-prolonging” procedures, such as a feeding tube to be withdrawn, and then
only in certain circumstances, not food and water. The authorities routinely
rescue children who are denied food and water, and the parents arrested and
charged. Even assuming consent by Terri Schiavo, this would constitute “Mercy
Killing,” which is against the law. Rulings that contradict clear and
unambiguous law are known as “legislating from the bench,” and are strictly forbidden
by the separation of powers: The legislating is done by the legislature, namely
the House and Senate. Therefore, the local police, upon hearing reports of
starvation - whether or not “court-ordered,” were obligated to go in, take the
victim into custody, and bring charges against the abusers - not use Police
powers to enforce illegal mistreatment. Police are not immune from being
arrested and charged for violations of the law. Therefore, Bush, as the state’s
“top cop” had an obligation to see to it that current laws be enforced. (He
chose to seek newly instituted “Terri’s Law,” instead, but he did enforce it
with state police, the FDLE agents, who threatened to arrest anyone, hospice
workers, city police, or whoever interfered.
In
support of my claims, the following legal specialists have assured the Governor
that there was no need to pass additional laws and that he was allowed to take
action: (1) Thomas Moore Law Center; (2) Herbert Titus; (3) John B. Thompson;
(4) Brian Fahling; (5) Common Good Foundation; and, lastly, (6) myself have
advised Governor Bush that he could legally act. (Some information for this
paragraph was taken from http://www.terrisfight.org/lead.htm
that briefly had copies of legal briefs online, and this author briefly
reviewed them before they were taken down.)
If Schiavo would not want to live, then the “Mercy
Killing” law. s. 765.309, and
possibly the “Assisting self-murder” law, s. 782.08, a second-degree felony
manslaughter charge, were violated. If her desire to die were ever in doubt,
then the charge would raise to “Attempted felony murder,” section 782.051 of
current 2003 Florida State Law. (With all the conflicting testimony, it is safe
to say that her wishes, whatever they may be, are in doubt.) Bush was wrong:
Both the local Police and, ultimately, he himself and his state police had
legal and moral obligation to intervene and enforce the laws: “The governor
shall take care that the laws [including the Mercy Killing laws] be faithfully
executed [enforced]…” The Florida Constitution, Article IV (EXECUTIVE), Section
1 (Governor) (a) - “The governor shall have power to call out the militia to
preserve the public peace, execute [enforce] the laws of the state,…” - Ibid at Article IV, Section 1, (d)
Q:
Analysis of “Terri’s Law:” Is constitutional?
A:
In order to answer this question, many tests must be applied:
1)
Equal Protection
2)
Public Records/Open Meetings concerns
3)
Rights to Privacy aka “Personal” or “Civil” Liberties
4)
Conflict with local restrictions
5)
Conflict with case law at the State or Federal level
6)
Conflict with State or Federal laws
7)
Conflict with State or US Constitution
8)
Separation of Powers Issues
9)
Proof or Evidence
10)
Due Process, notice or opportunity to challenge, be heard, or appeal
11)
Warrant
12)
Probable Cause
13)
Constitutional considerations of repeal
14)
Technical flaws or deficiencies (such as language agreement in house vs. senate
versions)
1)
Equal Protection
Arguably,
recent court actions have violated equal protection: When a family member, in
probate, alleges that a dead relative left them 100% of their estate, but
without a written directive or notarized and witnessed last will and testament,
this is ignored, and the estate is split up according to a preset formula,
defined by law. The courts awarded something even more important than an estate
- his wife’s life - without a written directive, thus the Courts apparently
violated equal protection for Terri Schiavo. “No state [court] shall … enforce
any law which shall …
deny any person … equal protection of the laws [including the Mercy Killing
laws].” (U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1)
~~~ “No person shall be deprived of any right because of … physical disability.”
(
2)
Public Records/Open Meetings concerns
The
author viewed a copy of this law online at the Florida Senate’s website, so the
Sunshine and Freedom of Information laws were not broken. (Accord Florida
Constitution, Article I, Section 24, Access to public records and meetings)
3)
Rights to Privacy aka “Personal” or “Civil” Liberties
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497
4)
Conflict with local restrictions
This
would be sovereign rights of a city, county, or municipality under state law or
the state constitution - such as the ability to regulate certain aspects of its
governance. (
5)
Conflict with case law at the State or Federal level
The
courts have generally found that it is appropriate to err on the side of
caution is in doubt, and a close reading of most, if not all case law, finds no
disagreement. A preponderance of case law supports Terri’s Law, most especially
the many cases of “case law” of the right of a governor or president to pardon
a convicted criminal. Terri’s Law is actually more restrictive, both in the initial
requirements, and in the fact that the “pardon” can be reversed. Thus, case law
would even suggest that “Terri’s Law” could actually be expanded to include a
“permanent” pardon, with no reasons needing to be given, just as is so often
done in death row cases, in which a governor or president permanently pardons a
criminal without needing to give a reason.
6)
Conflict with State or Federal laws
This
addresses a “gray area” of law, and thus appears not to conflict with either
state or federal law.
7)
Conflict with State or US Constitution
The
Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution addresses aspects of liberty, which
assume no doubt is present. When doubt is present, an illegal starvation may
result, which would abridge liberties. Even, assuming arguendo that Schiavo
would want to be disconnected from life-extending support, if she is truly in a
vegetative state, then she would arguably feel no pain, thus no loss of
liberties would occur. Conversely, if she were
cognizant of her surroundings (such as Dr. Stephen Hawking, world-renowned
physicist, who can only speak by means of a personal computer), then starvation
would be cruel and unusual. Thus, either way (whether she is vegetative
or cognizant), Terri’s Law does not appear to violate either State or US
Constitutions, but further questions are examined in more detailed directly
below.
8)
Separation of Powers Issues
This
is probably the weakest link in the chain of legality. When the courts
have ruled that both the feeding tubes and “regular” food and water be removed,
is the Governor allowed to act? Generally, if one does not like a law, then you
must either get it changed or live with it. The State lawmakers here have
chosen to change it. In “matters of law,” the courts are only allowed to write
law in “gray areas.” Otherwise, they are constrained to uphold the current law,
as it is written, whether or not they agree with it. In “matters of fact,” the
courts are also the proper venue, in which they hear testimony, see evidence,
and consider facts and allegations. The courts may have incorrectly ruled that
Terri Schiavo would want to have feeding tubes removed, but they were well
within their right to “rule” and then, if there is resistance, to “enforce”
this by Writ of Mandamus (more or less authorizing the Police to “physically”
enforce it).
The
Courts apparently had already overstepped the separation of powers boundary by
handing down rulings in direct conflict with mercy killing laws (which have not
been ruled unconstitutional), and then Bush, in refusing to enforce these
euthanasia laws, not only did not violate the separation of powers, actually
backed off a little in not enforcing current law - and seeking instead new laws
(Terri’s Law). (Bush, as the state’s “top cop” has the perfect right and
obligation to enforce the laws by directing his state’s law enforcement
officers thereby. There were numerous allegations that her husband had abused
Terri Schiavo, and these allegations were sufficient probable cause to
authorize an arrest of husband Michael Schiavo, and any subsequent
investigation.)
Although
it is only this author’s opinion, what I think is happening is that the
“independent” courts, already a little bit used to getting away with issuing an
illegal ruling to enact at least a mercy killing, were surprised at the quick
action by the Executive Branch (governor) and Legislative Branch (lawmakers),
as well as the news media and public to this situation - and felt invaded,
making informal claims that you can’s pass a law based on one situation
or for one person. While this law is very unusual in its limited
scope, laws are all the time passed in reaction to single incidents, such as
the “Brady Bill” relating to guns, and more recently, the “Amber Alert Laws,”
in relation to child abduction, in reaction to and named after a young woman
named Amber - and, now, lastly, “Terri’s Law” to address certain real and/or
perceived injustices.
9)
Proof or Evidence
This
objection does not relate to laws being passed, only decisions about single
cases before the court. The law, while narrowly tailored to fit only Terri
Schiavo, could theoretically be used to “pardon” other people in a similar
situation, as the law does not expire until about the 30th of this
month (October 2003). There is no “constitutional” requirement to prove a law
is needed before passing it. The lawmakers listen to their conscience as
“proof.”
10)
Due Process, notice or opportunity to challenge, be heard, or appeal
The
brief answer to this is that, like in a pardon for a criminal seeking
execution, there is no way to challenge or appeal the pardon. Since we all know
that pardons for criminals are constitutional, we will stick with the “brief”
answer here - sufficing it to say that a pardon for a person who is not a
criminal is even more appropriate, thus even more constitutional. The courts,
however, violate due process when they authorize legal guardians to waive their
wards’ fundamental rights, as shown by a recent Federal Court ruling that
California violated due process of the disabled by allowing guardian to
override the right to move out of the institution and into the community: “No
matter how well-meaning these third parties may be, such an automatic veto
policy is not appropriate.” Richard S. v Department of Developmental Services,
No.: SACV97-219 GLT (C.D.
Yet,
the legal (but questionable) removal of Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube - and the
illegal removal of regular food and water - apparently by court order - were
not reviewed by the Fla Supreme Court. *** Lastly, the lower courts denied
Terri Schiavo due process by rendering an order to stop regular food and water:
The 2003 Florida Statutes only permit the removal of “life-prolonging
procedures” (s. 765.309, Fla. Stat.), defined as “artificially provided
sustenance and hydration” (s. 765.101(10)), in limited circumstances, not
regular food and water. This order, since it is in direct conflict with current
statutes, deprived Terri Schiavo of “life, liberty or property” without Due
Process, in violation of The Florida Constitution, Article I, Section 9; U.S.
Constitution, Amendment V; and, U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1.
11)
Warrant
A
warrant is obviously not a requirement to pass a law, but this is included here
for completeness, because University of Florida scholar, Joseph Little, is
quoted in the Tampa Tribune (page 8, Nation/World, Thursday, 23 October 2003)
as saying that “[i]n our system of government, if the government wants to do
something to you, they’ve got to have a warrant, probable cause or some
evidence - none of which they have in this case.” -- “
brain, to live up to your name? -- said only in humor, of course (smile).”
12)
Probable Cause
Again,
you do not need probable cause to pass a law, Dr. Little, Chicken Little, and
friends, and no, the sky is not falling in.
13)
Constitutional considerations of repeal
The
Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 9, mandates that repeal or amendment
of a criminal statute shall not affect prosecution for any crimes previously
committed, but does this apply to Terri’s Law? Well, the law was amended (to
include a one-time “stay” in certain limited cases, where there is doubt) after
Terri Schiavo was placed, by court order, on a feeding tube, but this law does
not apply: No criminal statute was involved, and no crimes were previously
committed by Terri Schiavo to place her in this situation.
14)
Technical flaws or deficiencies (such as language agreement in house vs. senate
versions)
After
a last-minute mess, the house passed a bill in agreement with the language of
the senate bill. As a matter of record, the delays in passing this law - and
then subsequently in correcting language flaws - almost cost Schiavo her life.
No technical flaws are apparent in Terri’s- Law.
Answer:
In short, it appears that, while Terri’s Law rustles many feathers, it is far
from unconstitutional. It actually falls short of granting the wishes of most
lawmakers: Florida Senate President, Jim King, refused to introduce a bill
granting full-sweeping powers, like the similar abilities to grant an
irreversible pardon with no reason given, no ability to repeal, and no way to
rescind and reverse. Governor Bush, for his part, refused to enforce existing
law, actually letting the courts “legislate from the bench” and invade the
domain of the legislative branch, thus violating a separation of powers.
Other
points are relevant as well:
OBSERVATION: Judges are not (informally) allowed to give personal
opinions on something and then rule on it - they generally must recuse
themselves if it appears that they are biased or have expressed a public
opinion on a case under their review. Governor Bush, however, did give personal
opinions on the matter, as did lawmakers, before they acted. I make this
observation to be fair to the other side, but in all fairness to Bush and the
state lawmakers, their role is not the same as the “independent” judiciary.
OBSERVATION: After the new “Terri’s Law” expires fifteen (15) days
from its passage (on or about October 30), then any appeal of it would be moot,
but via Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992), the
Court said that at least three (3) instances have been recognized by Florida
courts in which a moot case will not be dismissed: 1) when the issues
are of great public importance (as opposed to great public interest); 2) when
the issues are likely to recur; and, 3) when collateral legal consequences flow
from the issues to be resolved that may affect the rights of a party. Godwin (citing Holly v. Auld,
450 So. 2d 217, 218 n.1 (
In
order to invoke option one (1), the “public importance” must be certified by a
District Court of Appeal, five of which exist in
Q:
What is the standard to determining the wishes of an incompetent person, unable
to speak for himself/herself?
A:
“A court must find that ‘the patient held a firm and settled commitment to the
commitment to the termination of life supports [not regular food and water]
under these circumstances…” Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health,
497 U.S. 285 n. 11 (quoting In re Westchester County Medical Center, 531 N.E.2d
607, 613 (N.Y. 1988)), see also In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258,
273 (Fla. 2nd Dist. Ct. App. 1990) (quoting Slomowitz v. Walker, 429
So.2d 797, 800) (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1983)), as quoted from Schindler
v Schiavo, (2D02-5394, Fla. 2nd Dist. App. Ct.), Brief of the Amici
Curiae, “Not Dead Yet,” et al. “In cases
of doubt, we must assume that a patient would want to choose to defend life in
exercising his or her right to privacy.” (Browning, 543 So.2d at 273, as quoted
by friend of the court brief, “Not Dead Yet,” Schindler v. Schiavo, 1D02-5394)
Q:
What is the legal definition of a persistent vegetative state?
A:
“The statutory definition is ‘a permanent and irreversible condition of
unconsciousness’ in which there is an absence of voluntary or cognitive
behavior of any kind, and an inability to communicate purposefully with the
environment. Sec. 765.101(12),
Q:
Does Terri Schiavo meet this legal and medical definition?
A:
While there are many doctors on both sides of the issue, most objective observers
agree that she appears to be at least partly conscious, and this can be quite
tricky: Dr. Stephen Hawking, who uses a computer to communicate, for example,
appears just as “out of it” than Terri, if not more so - without his computer,
he appears to be incoherent, unable to communicate, and possibly unconscious
according to some observers. The group, “Not Dead Yet,” mentioned previously,
claims in its friend of the court brief that the trial court required Terri
Schiavo to have “‘consistent’ and ‘reproducible’ actions,” in direct violation
of the statutory requirements above. (This would qualify as legislating from
the bench, strictly forbidden judiciary action by the state and federal
Separation of Powers constitutional requirements.)
Q:
What doubt exists as to whether a person is in a vegetative state or not?
A:
“Of 40 patients referred as being in the vegetative state, 17 (43%) were
considered as having been misdiagnosed; seven of these had been presumed to be
vegetative for longer than one year, including three for over four years. Most
of the misdiagnosed patients were blind or severely visually impaired. All
patients remained severely physically disabled, but nearly all were able to
communicate their preferences in quality of life issues - some to a high
level.” K. Andrews et al., “Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective
study in rehabilitation unit,” 313 British Med. J. 13-16 (Jul. 6, 1996), as
quoted from Schindler v Schiavo, (2D02-5394, Fla. 2nd
Dist. App. Ct.), Brief of the Amici Curiae, “Not Dead Yet,” et al.
Q:
What doubt exists as to whether a person’s family can accurately predict what
he or she would want?
A:
“Studies have shown that even family members [like Michael Schiavo] with good
intentions may not accurately predict the wishes of their disabled relatives.
See e.g. H. Koenig et al., ‘Attitudes of Elderly Patients and Their Families
Toward Physician-Assisted Suicide,’ 156 Arch. Internal Med. 2240-48 (1996),” as
quoted by Schindler v Schiavo, (2D02-5394,
Q: What does the law say in relation to euthanasia,
assisted suicide, and attempted murder?
A: From http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes
we get the following:
The 2003
765.309 Mercy killing or
euthanasia not authorized; suicide distinguished.—
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to
condone, authorize, or approve mercy killing or euthanasia, or to permit any
affirmative or deliberate act or omission to end life other than to permit the
natural process of dying.
(2) The withholding or withdrawal of
life-prolonging procedures from a patient in accordance with any provision of
this chapter does not, for any purpose, constitute a suicide.
765.101 Definitions.--As used
in this chapter:
(10) "Life-prolonging procedure" means
any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially
provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a
spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of
medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or
procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
782.08 Assisting
self-murder.--Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of
self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree,
punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
782.051 Attempted felony
murder.--
(1) Any person who perpetrates or attempts to
perpetrate any felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) and who commits, aids, or
abets an intentional act that is not an essential element of the felony and
that could, but does not, cause the death of another commits a felony of the first
degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life, or
as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, which is an offense
ranked in level 9 of the Criminal Punishment Code. Victim injury points shall
be scored under this subsection.
(2) Any person who perpetrates or attempts to
perpetrate any felony other than a felony enumerated in s. 782.04(3) and who
commits, aids, or abets an intentional act that is not an essential element of
the felony and that could, but does not, cause the death of another commits a
felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083,
or s. 775.084, which is an offense ranked in level 8 of the Criminal Punishment
Code. Victim injury points shall be scored under this subsection.
(3) When a person is injured during the
perpetration of or the attempt to perpetrate any felony enumerated in s.
782.04(3) by a person other than the person engaged in the perpetration of or
the attempt to perpetrate such felony, the person perpetrating or attempting to
perpetrate such felony commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as
provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, which is an offense ranked
in level 7 of the Criminal Punishment Code. Victim injury points shall be scored
under this subsection.
Q:
Was the press’ coverage of this issue either lacking or incorrect?
A:
USA Today has said that “[to] have nutrition withheld, a relative must persuade
a judge by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ that such a move would have been the
patient’s decision,” but, in fact, that would usually constitute “mercy killing
or euthanasia,” strictly prohibited by s. 765.309, 2003 Florida Statutes, which
prohibits, among other things, Dr. Jack Kevorkian from assisting in suicide.
The only exception is provided for the “withholding or withdrawal of
life-prolonging procedures,” and “Life-prolonging procedure,” according to s.
765.101(10), means “any medical procedure, … including
artificially provided sustenance [food] and hydration [water]…,” not just any
“nutrition,” as the article above seems to say. (USA Today, “Fla. case raises
hard end-of-life questions,” By Richard Willing, Anita Manning, and Deborah
Sharp, Thursday, October 23, 2003, Page 2A)
Regsiter writer and editor, Gordon Watts comments on Willing:
I spoke to Mr. Willing by phone about a month so ago [this is Dec 2003 now] and informed him that what happened to Terri Schiavo *was* against the
law, but he said that, no - it wasn't. (He woke me out of a dead sleep - not his fault.) But, what was his fault was this: When I tried to get a copy
of the law to quote it to him - he hung up on me!
Update: I spoke with Richard Willing like a week or so ago (this is Friday, 11 June 2004), and he was kind enough to promise me that, for the next story on Ms. Schiavo, I'd be among those people he called. This was his response to my observation that the Florida Supreme Court has, for over six (6) months and much examination of my case, now, refused to dismiss my Habeas Corpus petition for the illegally detained person of Ms. Terri Schiavo. (Case number: SC03-2420) I asked him why, if my case were so bad as many news media persons had suggested, why did the Supreme Court not dismiss my case immediately, like they do so many other cases, even good ones. My own opinion is that it sometimes takes more than a good case to get your day in court. Sometimes you need "heat" from the news media --or the threat of it. Isn't that what Representative Johnnie Byrd (the current Speaker of the House in Florida) said? "Things that make you go 'Hmm...'."
And, if you think he's used a little bias, rest assured of this: Other's have suggested that "We've given plenty of news covereage to Terri Schiavo," but if that is true, then why do most public think: (1) It was legal - and (2) It was court-ordered?
(..1..) First, the court only ordered removal of said feeding tube - not "regular" food and water - (..2..) second, it *is* illegal, in that it violates Mercy-Killing and Assisted suicide laws (see above - or my court briefs for details) - makes no difference whether the act is done by starvation - or lethal injection - that's why Dr. Jack Kevorkian doesn't do his thing here in Florida - and why our law enforcement (and our Attorney General, Charlie Crist) has threatened to arrest and charge the Clearwater band, "Hell on Earth" if they went through with their planned on-stage mercy-killing stunt.
(The fact it was on-stage did not make this case any more illegal - it was illegal, but the laws in Florida are apparently only for the rich & powerful, and apparently Terri Schiavo doesn't fall into that catagory!) ~~~ More on USA Today writer, Richard Willing below: (sorry to pick on you, but you made yourself a tempting target of my editorial!)
Furthermore,
this same article is quoted as saying that “[t]he part of the brain destroyed
by a lack oxygen [in Schiavo] cannot regenerate, MOST
neurologists say. But a FEW say that they would not rule out the possibility of
some recovery.” (Ibid, emphasis mine) However, I recall reports that the Schindler
family had fifteen (15) experts compared to the five (5) that were hired by
Michael Schiavo:
“‘We have close to 15 doctors who are on record with the courts
saying she can improve and will improve,’ Bob Schindler told CNN last week. ‘At
best, he (Michael Schiavo) has maybe four, maybe five doctors who have
testified that she cannot. So, we have the majority of doctors that are very
excited about Terri's recovery.’” (CNN.com, “
Lastly,
the news media has not challenged Bush on his contention that he did not have
authority to send police in and enforce euthanasia or mercy killing laws - or
to order an investigation.
OBSERVATION:
Here are cases similar to Schiavo:
*
“Thirty years ago a stroke left me in a coma. When I awoke I found myself
completely paralyzed and unable to speak. For six years I was considered brain
dead. I was not.” Julie Tavalaro, “Look Up for Yes,”
(1997), as quoted in Schindler v Schiavo, (2D02-5394,
*
Dr. Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist, is thought to be the most
intelligent scientist in his field since Dr. Albert Einstein, who developed the
theory of relativity. Dr. Hawking, current Isaac Newton chair and Lucasian
Professor of Mathematics at
A medical miracle, he is one of few people in his condition who are still alive, but he cannot communicate
verbally, and he barely has control over his limbs and motor skills. He
communicates by use of a laptop computer, which he uses to select phrases, and
when he appears on TV occasionally, his “voice” sounds like a computer. Of
course, he cannot feed himself, but would we starve Dr. Hawking in his little
wheelchair?
*
Pope John Paul II, famous head of the worldwide Catholic Church, has almost no
ability to speak or move around now days, due to his advanced age and declining
physical condition, not unlike many of our elderly family or friends. Yet, why
is he treated any different than Terri Schiavo?
See what happened to these two (2) women: It will scare you!
*
(.1.) Reverend Rus Cooper-Dowda's ordeal will scare you if you are even half-alive: “There is … the time I was considered as good as dead. There was only one nurse who believed I was still ‘in there’ and able to communicate. With ink on my finger and paper on a clipboard, together she and I proved that indeed I did hold an opinion about whether I should live or die. There was controversy as to whether my recognizable writing was communication or seizure activity. The controversy lasted until the BIG conference. The doctors and my husband, all of whom were spending less and less time with me, granted a meeting, as a courtesy to my mother and the nurses who felt I should not be written off. At the end of the meeting my (then) husband held up a message board to prove I couldn’t use it. When he asked me to communicate something, I laboriously answered the man who was not allowing me the most basic of care, ‘D-I-V-O-R-C-E Y-O-U.’ The doctors all laughed an attributed my phrase to more seizure activity. Then the nurse took the board and asked me to repeat what I had just said. I did so with, ‘D-I-V-O-R-C-E H-I-M.’ There was never a question after that as to whether I could think or respond to my environment. The nurse had saved my life. The subsequent divorce paved the way for the rehabilitative care which brought me to the writing of this very sentence.” (From the essay, “When I woke up… a personal journey with Terri Schindler-Schiavo,” published by The Edmonds Institute,
* (.2.) Kate Adamson, a New Zealand-native and 33-year-old mother of two, was also quite conscious, but unable to speak, after a stroke. However, Adamson (sometimes misspelled in news reports as "Anderson") had someone fighting for her. She could hear doctors giving up on her and trying to her to death, but she was luckier than some - her husband fought for her right to avoid murder - by threating to sue everyone in sight.
In order to find information about her - and there is a lot out there - put Kate Adamson Terri Schiavo into any search engine, and be prepared for a lot of hits. She, like Cooper-Dowda, was given up for dead - but was in fact well able to recover - and did so.
*
“Cancer patient Yolanda Blake was hospitalized last November 30 after
experiencing severe bleeding. Despite the insistence of her sister and of the
friend who held her power of attorney, the hospital refused to leave in a
feeding tube or a catheter, and on December 14 the county judge ruled in the
hospital’s favor that Blake should be allowed to ‘die with dignity.’ On
December 15 Blake woke up. When asked if she wanted to live, she responded, ‘Of
course I do!’” (FreeRepublic.com “A Conservative News Forum,” “The
Euthanasia/Abortion Connection” Feminists for Life of
*
“Dr. Ronald Cranford, the euthanasia advocate who hopes to help Pete Busalacci
take care of Christine when she is brought to Minnesota, had a similar case in
1979. Sgt. David Mack was shot in the line of duty as a policeman, and
*
We are prohibited from starving dogs and cats, which cannot always feed
themselves but must be fed by humans.
Would we let them starve to death? Would it even be legal? Moral? Practical? Possible?
*
There are plenty of physically handicapped and mentally retarded people who,
like Terri Schiavo, cannot feed themselves. Would we let them starve to death?
Would it even be legal? Moral? Practical?
Possible?
*
We all have many elderly family and friends, like Pope John Paul II, above.
Would we let them starve to death? Would it even be legal? Moral?
Practical? Possible?
*
“After a car accident in 1984, he [Terry Wallis] was in a coma for three
months. He had brain stem injuries, was semiconscious and paralyzed below the
neck. In June 2003, after 18 years, he woke up. His first words were ‘Mom. Pepsi. Milk.’ As of August, he was
in rehab and was being evaluated to see how much cognitive ability he can
recover.” (USA Today, “Cases through the
years,” Source: News reports, USA TODAY research, Thursday, October 23, 2003, Page
6D, “Health & behavior,” Life, SECTION D)
*
In 1983, a car accident left Nancy Cruzan unconscious but able to breath on her own. In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Nancy
Cruzan had a right to die, and, after a Missouri court ruled that this was
Cruzan’s wish, only her feeding tube, not regular food and water removed, which
hints again that the Florida Courts overstepped their legal boundaries - in
contrast to the Terri Schiavo being deprived regular food and water, beyond the
court-ordered removal of her feeding tube: Lack of food and water, since it
would prove fatal, constituted euthanasia aka mercy killing, thus would be
illegal according to Florida Law. (Info for Cruzan taken USA Today article
cited above)
Here
are some more people who can not feed themselves and,
in some cases, appear to be in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), yet are not
starved to death:
*
Ronald Reagan, former President of the
*
Christopher Reeves, actor, most noted for his role lead role in the Superman
movies
*
Patients of “Dr. Death,” Dr. Jack Kevorkian, who though are willing, are
protected by law
*
Friends of the rock band, “Hell on Earth,” who are not unlike Dr. Kevorkian’s
patients
…and
then there is
*
Terri Schindler-Schiavo, who is discriminated against because there is no
enforcement of laws preventing discrimination based on physical disability -
like is done with race, gender, and religious discrimination. Where is the NAACP (race), NOW (gender), and ACLU (religious and
civil rights)? Either we are united we stand, or divided we fall - we must
stick together.
Q:
Why did Gov Bush choose to ask lawmakers to pass new law instead of enforce
current law, especially after getting legal opinions that he could legally act?
A:
Only Bush and the Almighty know the answer to that, but one can intelligently
speculate: (1) Perhaps he really wasn’t sure. (2)
Maybe he thought that he could get a better law passed, and he almost did just
that, until Senate President, Jim King resisted efforts to pass any legislation
beyond a narrowly tailored bill aimed at giving “pardon” power to the governor.
(3) Most likely, however, is that he thought that gaining support of the
legislature would make it easier to gain public support, should he need to send
in the state police at any time to enforce the law. This is what apparently
happened when he directed state FDLE agents to arrest anyone who interfered
with his recent executive order, a new power given to him under the recent
Terri’s Law. (4) Perhaps Bush was acting under pressure of more cautious
elements.
Q:
Why did lawmakers choose to pass new law instead of ask Bush and police to
enforce current law?
A:
Again, only the individual lawmakers and their Creator know for sure, but we
can speculate: (1) Maybe they were also not sure and wanted to err on the side
of caution. (2) Perhaps they too wanted to beef up the law and close loopholes.
(3) It might be that the lawmakers also wanted to gain public support and so
joined hands with a popular sitting governor on a topic with an already broad
spectrum of support. (4) Most likely, in my opinion is that the lawmakers were
under peer pressure from Bush, the news media, and constituents,
and they did not want to be seen as signing Terri Schiavo’s death warrant.
This, however, is not all bad: They wanted to represent their constituents, and
this is exactly what they did. That is, in fact, their job, to represent their
constituents, whom we hope have asked them to do the
right thing.
Q:
What issues of abuse and other questionable actions might have obligated the
police and state attorney to step in and file charges (and for Bush to have
ordered an investigation)?
A:
I am only a novice, and so I might omit some things, but here are some
observations, taken from various and varied internet sources:
(1)
The fact that the
(2)
A Nuclear Imaging Bone Scan dated 05 March 1991 done on a “Schiavo, Theresa” by
a doctor “Carhahan, James” (spelling may be off due to poor photo quality of
test results, pic obtained from official Terri Schiavo website, listed above)
-- This found that “[t]he patient has a history of trauma” due to “irregular
periosteal ossification,” in other words, calcium deposits on the bone which
led the examiner to believe that there had been some physical abuse and the
subsequent healing. Nurse, Eleanor Dreschsel, is said to have discovered this
bone scan, which had apparently been not released to the family attorney
initially, as court rules of discovery require.
(3)
Affidavit from “C. Johnson,” Certified Nursing Assistant and former caregiver
of Terri Schiavo from Sable Palms Nursing Facility, in which she alleges, in
part: “I learned as a part of my training, that there was a family dispute and
that the husband, as guardian, wanted no rehabilitation for Terri.”
(4)
Affidavit from “Carla Sauer Iyer,” Registered Nurse and former caregiver of
Terri Schiavo from Palm Gardens Convalescent Facility, in which she alleges, in
part: “Michael would say ‘When is she going to die?’, ‘Has she died yet?’,
‘When is that bitch going to die?’”, “He [Michael Schiavo] is very large [he is
about six and a half feet tall] and uses menacing body language, such as
standing too close to you, getting right in your face and practically
shouting.”, “Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying things
such as ‘mommy,’ and ‘help me.’”, and also “When Michael visited Terri, he
always came alone and and always had the door closed and locked while he was
with Terri. He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so. When he
left Terri would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and
have cold sweats. It looked like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so
I’d check her blood sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low it was below
the range where it would register an actual number reading. I would put
dextrose [a form of sugar] in Terri’s mouth to counteract it. This happened
about five times on my shift, as I recall. Normally Terri’s blood sugar levels
were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding. It is
medically possible that Michael injected Terri with regular insulin, which is
very fast acting, but I don’t have any way of knowing it for sure.”
(5)
Affidavit from “Robert Schindler, Sr.,” Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s father, in
which he alleges, in part: “It is my belief that Michael Schiavo has moved my
daughter back into Hospice in the hopes that she will expire over this Labor
Day weekend.”
(6)
Affidavit from “H. Law,” Certified Nursing Assistant and former caregiver of
Terri Schiavo from Palm Gardens Nursing Home, in which she alleges, in part:
“During the time I cared for Terri, she formed words. I heard her say ‘Mommy’
from time to time…and I also heard her say ‘Help me’ a number of times.”
(7)
Both Michael Schiavo and also some friends and/or relatives have indicated that
Terri Schiavo did in fact not want to live in that type of state and would want
to have no life-sustaining helps keeping her alive -- this I add for balance to
give Michael Schiavo’s side their fair hearing.
(8)
A 25 year old is not likely to have ever talked about end of life issues, thus
casting doubt on Michael Schiavo’s allegations.
(9)
Michael Schiavo waited about ten (10) years to bring up allegations that his
wife really wanted to die under her unique circumstances - in early court
hearings, he promised to take care of her for the rest of her natural life,
which he alleged would be very long.
(10)
“…Terri’s parents and siblings testified they never heard Terri express a wish
to die rather than live on life support.” (
(11)
“One of Terri’s childhood friends, Diane Meyer, testified that Terri once
uncharacteristically lost her temper when Meyer told a joke about [coma victim]
Karen Quinlan. ‘What is the state vegetable of
(12)
“To undermine [husband] Michael’s credibility, Terri’s close friend Jackie
Rhodes testified that Terri often spoke about divorcing Michael and described
him as mentally abusive.” (Ibid)
(13)
“Terri’s sister Suzanne and brother Bobby also said their sister wanted to
divorce Michael, and that she spoke of it only days before she collapsed. Bobby
said Terri wept as she told him, ‘Bobby, I am miserable, I am so unhappy. I
want to get a divorce.’” (Ibid)
(14)
“The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them
Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although
the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time. And
with it, they found Trudy Capone.” (Ibid)
(15)
“A former co-worker of Michael’s, [Trudy] Capone, signed an affidavit on May 9,
2001, stating ‘Michael confided in me all the time about Terri … He said to me
many times that he had no idea what her wishes were.’” (Ibid)
(16)
I, Gordon W. Watts, heard, on a radio program, Schindler family attorney, Pat
Anderson, claim that she had about thirty (30) affidavits, far more than I have
found here, thus raising the possibility that these claims here are firmly
supported by further witness testimony.
(17)
“ST. PETE BEACH -- The woman whose remarks led a judge to resume the feeding of
Terri Schiavo was questioned by attorneys for more than two hours Tuesday at a
St. Pete Beach law firm. Cyndi Shook was deposed by attorneys for Terri
Schiavo’s husband, Michael Schiavo, and by attorneys for her parents, Bob and
Mary Schindler. The Schindlers claim that Michael Schiavo spoke specifically
about whether his wife would want to be fed through a tube to stay alive. They
say Shook quoted Schiavo as saying, ‘How the hell should I know? She was 25
years old, and we did not talk about it.’” (St. Petersburg Times, “Woman is
questioned in Schiavo inquiry - Michael Schiavo’s former girlfriend denies that
he discussed how his wife would want to be cared for, lawyers say,” Tampa Bay
section, May, 09, 2001)
(18)
“Terri Schindler-Schiavo does not want to die. She would like to go home. And
she tried to convey this to her father in no uncertain terms by sitting bolt
upright and trying to get out of her chair when told she might be killed, her
family has revealed.” (WorldNetDaily.com, “MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH - Terri
Schiavo wants to live: Secret therapy given to disabled woman who starts
judge-ordered starvation today,”
(19)
“I, Gordon Wayne Watts, read the above-quoted article about Terri supposedly
sitting bolt upright in bed, and I gave a copy of this article to Bobby
Schindler, Jr., while visiting the hospice vigil at Pinellas Park, and I asked
him about it. Later, after he had had a chance to read it, he told me that,
yes, this article was, in fact, true.” (Author comments)
(20)
“Supporters of a disabled Florida woman embroiled in a euthanasia battle with
her husband called Wednesday for a criminal investigation into the husband’s
alleged abuse of his incapacitated wife. The request comes just days after
three of Terri Schindler Schiavo’s former caregivers submitted sworn affidavits
detailing a years-long history of denied medical care, altered or destroyed
medical records, and alleged attempts by Michael Schiavo to kill his wife …
Those records, they allege, were deleted from the files and, in some cases,
were later seen in trashcans at nursing stations” (CNSNews.com ™, Cybercast
News Service, “Culture” Section, from “Disabled Woman’s Family, Former Nurses
Seek Inquiry,” By Jeff Johnson, CNSNews.com Congressional Bureau Chief,
September 10, 2003)
(21)
Euthanasia aka “Mercy Killing” is illegal in the state of
(22)
Michael Schiavo, who claimed that money won in a medical malpractice suit would
be used for medical bills and rehabilitation, also told a jury that Terri would
live a normal life-span. Now, however, he is trying to misappropriate (steal?)
funds, instead applying them for attorneys’ fees and apparently hoping to keep
the rest of the money - and, he has also changed his story on Terri’s potential
life-span, saying that she is hopeless. (Some information for this taken from
“The Weekly Standard” newspaper, web version, article: “The Interview That
Wasn’t,” By Wesley J. Smith,
(23)
Once Michael Schiavo had received a $750,000 settlement, however, he “ordered a
‘do not resuscitate’ order placed on Terri’s chart she that if she had a
cardiac event [heart attack], the doctors would not attempt to save her.”
(Ibid)
(24)
Shortly after that, “Schiavo also refused to permit curative treatments, such
as antibiotics for infections.” (Ibid, and on this point, I, Gordon W. Watts,
also heard the Glenn Beck radio program make this “no antibiotics for Terri”
allegation on its Tuesday,
(25)
Michael Schiavo’s “financial” conflict of interest, in that he stands to gain a
large settlement of his wife received less money for her treatment - and
certainly if she dies and received no treatment.
(26)
Michael Schiavo’s “self-preservation” conflict of interest, in that he may have
physically abused his wife, and having her cremated would cover up his abuse
and help him avoid criminal prosecution for spousal abuse.
(27)
Michael Schiavo’s “romantic” conflict of interest, in that he has a girlfriend,
indicates that he does not now speak for wife Terri. Also, the fact that he had
children out of wedlock is violation of sex crimes laws, 798.01 and 798.02,
current 2003 Florida laws, whether enforced or not, morally, legally, and
practically valid - “practically” valid because enforcement of these sex crime
laws reduces venereal disease and domestic violence - Schiavo should be charged
for these crimes and investigated for the abuse charges alleged above. --
“legally” valid because chapter 798 is current law - “morally” valid, according
to many religious beliefs, but the law looks at the legal angle, so emphasize
it - and, “practically INVALID” because enforcement of these laws would result
in about ninety-five percent of all people being locked up, as most have had
adulterous or illicit sex. (Sorry - I had to include ALL the truth,
not just that which supports arrest of Michael Schiavo.)
(28)
Husband, Michael Schiavo, has denied Terri Schiavo rehab, and now blames
condition on her and tries to punish her for what appears to be his mistake.
(29)
The various courts have heard from supposed “expert,” Dr. Ronald Cranford,
whose bias is apparent in his self-given nickname, “Dr. Humane Death.” However,
Dr. Cranford is not only biased, but also has a bad record of accomplishment:
“Dr. Ronald Cranford, the euthanasia advocate who hopes to help Pete Busalacci
take care of Christine when she is brought to
Q:
To whom would I direct charges or complaints?
A:
The city police officers (the Executive Branch of Government) who have domain
there would take a report. The
***
End of Press Release.
***
******************************
******************************
Terri now days - You may click on this pic to visit the official Terri Schiavo website
Gordon Watts homepage
The Register AOL Mirror
The Register GeoCities Mirror
Additional health research on the Tripod mirror
***
End of Press Release.
***
******************************
******************************