The Schiavo CaseEssay title: The Schiavo CaseIn 1990, Theresa “Terri” Schiavo collapsed in her home in St. Petersburg, FL, suffered respiratory and cardiac arrest, and went into a coma. When she emerged from her coma, ten weeks later, she suffered severe brain damage due to a lack of oxygen to the brain for a prolonged period of time. This left Terri in a vegetative state where she did not demonstrate a constant cognizance of herself or surroundings.One year later, Terri was diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). In 1998, Michael Schiavo, Terris husband and guardian, petitioned to the courts to remove her feeding tube. Though Terris parents opposed his petition, the Florida courts decreed that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and should not be kept alive. This decision was contested by all branches of government. Florida courts maintained their position that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and would want to stop life support. Her feeding tube was removed for the final time on March 18, 2005. Terri Schiavo died thirteen days later on March 31, 2005 of dehydration.
The Schiavo case is the most notorious, recent example of a conflict about issues involving end-of-life health care. Michael Schiavo was found to be Terri Schiavos guardian. He said it would be against Terris wishes to continue life support and she would not want her life prolonged if there was no hope for recovery; therefore, Terri Schiavos life support should be removed. There was a lot of dispute about whether or not these truly were Terris wishes because she did not have an advanced health care directive, such as a living will, to put her wishes in writing. However, the Florida courts found it would be Terri Schiavos wish to remove life support because three witnesses said Terri had discussed that she would not want to be kept alive with no hope of recovery.
The lawsuit and the lawsuit are an interesting but still a mystery. The case has raised some fascinating questions regarding the nature of the original claim and, as I reported last week, about what the Florida Supreme Court will be deciding. Last week, the Florida Supreme Court granted the U.S. Supreme Court’s request to reverse the state’s ban on child support in which a father will pay all of his kids back for life if he is dead. That was also part of a court ruling last fall, requiring states to establish a specific amount of money needed to provide birth control and contraception, among other things. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in favor of that case, one year after it was initiated. At the time, I was skeptical of the ability of the Florida Supreme Court to rule on appeal, given that the Florida Supreme Court, which is based primarily in the lower Ninth Circuit, did not have a say in all of this pending litigation, though the Florida Supreme Court was granted early, with the help of local groups and activists, to have the matter decided as on January 11 (that is, before June 15, 2008). The Florida Supreme Court, however, is set to take up the case next Tuesday. In a decision that will undoubtedly shape how the Supreme Court deals with the Florida case, however, could very well have a major impact on Florida’s right to fair treatment.
Some of my previous articles on the question of who controls funds for the federal Affordable Care Act, and the implications for the health of vulnerable populations, may not be an exact science, and may be in conflict with some of the more important issues that have been raised regarding the Affordable Care Act in the last two decades. However, it shows just how much we still have to take seriously in the Supreme Court of the United States, and it does not involve any single entity that has any significant power over people’s health care decisions.
I have argued before that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over state courts and their use of that power violates the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the First Amendment, even though the constitution states clearly that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [p. 28] (It is true, of course, that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit all types of state courts, including federal courts, from enforcing their own Constitution. However, it seems a little unfair to compare the Framers’ interpretation of them with what is done by any statute or court in every state in the Union, even though the framers explicitly wrote in the Fifth Amendment that the Fifth Amendment did not prohibit state courts from dealing with the subject matters of the federal government.) Indeed, in 2012, I explained in part one of my book [
The lawsuit and the lawsuit are an interesting but still a mystery. The case has raised some fascinating questions regarding the nature of the original claim and, as I reported last week, about what the Florida Supreme Court will be deciding. Last week, the Florida Supreme Court granted the U.S. Supreme Court’s request to reverse the state’s ban on child support in which a father will pay all of his kids back for life if he is dead. That was also part of a court ruling last fall, requiring states to establish a specific amount of money needed to provide birth control and contraception, among other things. Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in favor of that case, one year after it was initiated. At the time, I was skeptical of the ability of the Florida Supreme Court to rule on appeal, given that the Florida Supreme Court, which is based primarily in the lower Ninth Circuit, did not have a say in all of this pending litigation, though the Florida Supreme Court was granted early, with the help of local groups and activists, to have the matter decided as on January 11 (that is, before June 15, 2008). The Florida Supreme Court, however, is set to take up the case next Tuesday. In a decision that will undoubtedly shape how the Supreme Court deals with the Florida case, however, could very well have a major impact on Florida’s right to fair treatment.
Some of my previous articles on the question of who controls funds for the federal Affordable Care Act, and the implications for the health of vulnerable populations, may not be an exact science, and may be in conflict with some of the more important issues that have been raised regarding the Affordable Care Act in the last two decades. However, it shows just how much we still have to take seriously in the Supreme Court of the United States, and it does not involve any single entity that has any significant power over people’s health care decisions.
I have argued before that the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over state courts and their use of that power violates the Constitution and the Due Process Clause of the First Amendment, even though the constitution states clearly that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” [p. 28] (It is true, of course, that the U.S. Constitution does not prohibit all types of state courts, including federal courts, from enforcing their own Constitution. However, it seems a little unfair to compare the Framers’ interpretation of them with what is done by any statute or court in every state in the Union, even though the framers explicitly wrote in the Fifth Amendment that the Fifth Amendment did not prohibit state courts from dealing with the subject matters of the federal government.) Indeed, in 2012, I explained in part one of my book [
It is well established under Florida law that persons have a right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment. Floridas law and its state constitution clearly support this right of refusal, even in the absence of a written advance directive. The law is defended by the ethical principle of autonomy that allows patients to maintain control over their bodies. This moral and legal right of physical integrity does not evaporate when patients become unable to express their wishes. Instead, the law authorizes a surrogate decision maker to step in to convey the requests of debilitated patients. As Terri Schiavos guardian, Michael Schiavo had the right to refuse medical treatment for her. The body of United States law holds that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical treatment and may be discontinued or removed under the same conditions as any other form of medical treatment. Because the plan of care to discontinue feeding and hydration was selected, Terri Schiavo was deemed to have a life-limiting condition and was therefore an appropriate hospice referral to remove her feeding tube.
Terri Schiavo was a devout Roman Catholic. Catholics believe that it is considered euthanasia if one refuses artificial nutrition and hydration. This sparked controversy about if the courts decision be upheld and her feeding tube removed. The Florida legislature and Governor Jeb Bush, for religious causes, interfered in a case that belonged in the courts. Most liberals believe that the Schiavo case is the perfect example that the theocratic right has taken functioning control of the Republican Party and is using it as a foundation from which to force their religious