PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Supreme Court rejects Schiavo parents' appeal


|Zach|
03-24-2005, 08:49 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/24/schiavo/index.html

U.S. Supreme Court rejects Schiavo parents' appeal
State judge who ordered feeding tube removal gets case again


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Thursday an appeal by the parents of Terri Schiavo to have their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube reinserted.

The court, without comment, refused to intervene after the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice Wednesday turned down a plea from the parents, Bob and Mary Schindler

The fate of Terri Schiavo is also in a waiting stage on another front -- the Florida circuit court where the judicial wrangling began seven years ago.

Schiavo's parents and her husband have been at odds over the woman's care, and the battle has drawn in religious conservatives on the side of the Schindlers to fight Michael Schiavo's efforts to let his wife die, as he says she wanted.

Twenty court rulings have sided with Michael Schiavo, who as husband is also guardian. The courts have ruled that evidence shows Terri Schiavo expressed her wishes, although she did not have a written living will.

The Supreme Court petition was given to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has jurisdiction over emergency appeals in cases arising in the 11th U.S. Circuit, which includes Florida, where Terri Schiavo lives in a hospice.

It was thefifth time the case has been presented to the Supreme Court, which has consistently refused to hear it.

Most recently, on Friday, lawyers for the House of Representatives filed an appeal asking the justices to intervene in the case. The appeal was denied without comment.

On the Florida front, Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge George Greer has said he will rule by noon Thursday on the latest effort by Florida officials to intervene in the case.

Greer had ordered Schiavo's tube removed last Friday, after seven years of court battles between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo. The issue now before Greer involves allegations that Terri Schiavo may have been abused by her husband.

In addition, in a petition by the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF), a neurologist who examined Schiavo's medical records found she was "most likely in a state of minimal consciousness," rather than the persistent vegetative state previous doctors have diagnosed.

According to the petition, the agency's board-certified neurologist, Dr. William Polk Cheshire, has information "that seriously challenges the diagnosis that Mrs. Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state," as courts have upheld.

"This new information raises serious concerns and warrants immediate action," Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said. (Full story)

Bush has vowed to do "everything within my power" to restore Schiavo's feeding tube.

David Gibbs, attorney for Schiavo's parents, called the neurologist's findings "shocking new medical developments."

Greer barred Florida authorities Wednesday from removing Terri Schiavo from the hospice.

The judge in 2002 rejected arguments put forth by doctors chosen by Schiavo's parents that she was not in a persistent vegetative state. Three other doctors -- two chosen by Michael Schiavo and one chosen by the court -- concluded she was in that state.

The DCF alleges that 30 "detailed allegations of abuse, neglect or exploitation" have been made against Michael Schiavo, including a failure to provide his wife with adequate therapy.

There was no immediate response from Michael Schiavo about the petition, but he has said he loves his wife and has provided her with the best care possible.
Late-night appeal to justices

Anticipating the Schindlers' appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, House Republican leaders filed an amicus curiae, or "friend of the court," brief with the high court about 6:30 p.m. ET.

The Schindlers' appeal was filed just before 11 p.m. ET.

"If the tube is not reinserted by order of this court, Terri will die before this court is able to consider the merits of the petition," the appeal read.

"The United States of America must stand for life, accuracy, and fairness in the process afforded to an innocent, incapacitated woman."

The Schindlers, in their Supreme Court brief, said that "a miraculous event occurred during the weekend," citing the report of Barbara Weller, an attorney with the Christian Legal Society.

Weller said before the feeding tube was removed Friday, she urged Terri to say "I want to live," and Terri responded "Ahhhhhhh waaaaaaaa," which she interpreted to mean "I want to live."

Earlier Wednesday night, Bob Schindler accused Florida Judge Greer of being "on a crusade" to kill Terri.

"I don't think that the courts are going to be helpful at all. Actually, they have banded together to uphold this one particular judge," Schindler told CNN's "NewsNight with Aaron Brown."

"We've had very little success in the courts. They're not hearing any of the evidence that we've presented them, and our only hope at this point as we see it is through the governor (of Florida) and the Department of Children and Families."

Schindler said he believes Gov. Bush can exercise executive authority to prolong his daughter's life, at least until the legal issues are sorted out.

"She has been really railroaded into a death sentence by this particular judge, the circuit court judge. ... He has a crusade to kill this girl."

The parents visited their daughter Wednesday, flanked by police. Groups of activists who support them were outside the hospice.

A Roman Catholic monsignor who is one of the parents' spiritual advisers accompanied the family, and said afterward that although Terri Schiavo's tongue was still moist, they applied some Vaseline to it.
A day of setbacks for parents

Terri Schiavo's parents suffered several setbacks Wednesday:

* A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta refused by a 2-1 vote to order the tube reinserted.

* The full 11th Circuit later in the day voted 10-2 not to reconsider the panel's rejection.

* In Washington, the Bush administration said there was nothing more it could do.

* A bill in the Florida Senate aimed at prolonging Terri's life failed 21-18.

The U.S. Justice Department has filed "statements of interest" supporting the parents in each court action.

Last weekend, President Bush signed a bill passed by Congress moving the Schiavo case from state to federal courts, and Monday, U.S. District Court Judge James Whittemore in Tampa refused to grant a temporary restraining order that would have allowed reinsertion of the woman's feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo suffered profound brain damage in 1990, when her heart stopped temporarily, perhaps because of an eating disorder. Since then, she has received around-the-clock care.

In 1998, her husband petitioned to have her feeding tube removed. After court rulings, the tube was removed for two days in 2001 and six days in 2003.

Gov. Bush strongly urged the Legislature to pass a bill that would save Schiavo, as it did in 2003. That law allowed Bush to order doctors to restore Schiavo's feeding tube six days after it had been removed. But that law was later declared unconstitutional by the Florida Supreme Court.

Since last Friday, Michael Schiavo has been at Terri Schiavo's bedside, his lawyer, George Felos, has said.

Mary Schindler said Wednesday: "When I close my eyes at night, all I can see is Terri's face in front of me, dying, starving to death."

CNN's Ted Barrett, Joe Johns, Bill Mears and John Zarrella contributed to this report.

Brock
03-24-2005, 08:54 AM
I guess it's over. I hope everyone involved can live with their decisions.

mlyonsd
03-24-2005, 08:54 AM
Ok, pump her up with morphine until her heart stops. Please.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 09:02 AM
Ok, pump her up with morphine until her heart stops. Please.

Yup. It's inhumane the way we sometimes treat animals, but allowing her to die this way is supposed to be "civilized?"

|Zach|
03-24-2005, 09:08 AM
Yup. It's inhumane the way we sometimes treat animals, but allowing her to die this way is supposed to be "civilized?"
There is an interesting thing that I don't know the answer to in this case. It has not been brought up.

Hypothetically...if she did have a living will and it was her wish to not to go on then it is my understanding that some form of drug is given to a patient in addition to something like a feeding tube being taken away. This is to relieve the person of any form of pain that could be felt based on he or shes condition at the time.

This makes for a bad situation because with her status in limbo from her familes fight you can't really do this. It seems as though this has led to more suffering.

I am in no way condemning them but as far as the suffering part of this situation it seems to have created a uniqe situation

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 09:12 AM
There is an interesting thing that I don't know the answer to in this case. It has not been brought up.

Hypothetically...if she did have a living will and it was her wish to not to go on then it is my understanding that some form of drug is given to a patient in addition to something like a feeding tube being taken away. This is to relieve the person of any form of pain that could be felt based on he or shes condition at the time.

This makes for a bad situation because with her status in limbo from her familes fight you can't really do this. It seems as though this has led to more suffering.

I am in no way condemning them but as far as the suffering part of this situation it seems to have created a uniqe situation

Some argue there is no suffering, and they may be right.

It's perplexing alright, though. Perhaps the best thing to come out of this is for large numbers of people to get off their duffs and get their living wills done.

Cochise
03-24-2005, 09:14 AM
That's a really bad headline, and I noticed the AP did the same thing. Both stories' titles make it sound like the Court decided in the husband's favor when really they decided not to hear the case.

|Zach|
03-24-2005, 09:14 AM
Some argue there is no suffering, and they may be right.

It's perplexing alright, though. Perhaps the best thing to come out of this is for large numbers of people to get off their duffs and get their living wills done.
Indeed

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/23/living.wills.ap/index.html

Like I said, this is not condeming her families fight her what they have done because if I was of there mindset that there is no way my child felt like this I would be doing the same thing but...

If this fight would have never happened there would be zero suffereing on her end. If one goes by the opinion of some that she is suffereing at all.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 09:32 AM
That's a really bad headline, and I noticed the AP did the same thing. Both stories' titles make it sound like the Court decided in the husband's favor when really they decided not to hear the case.
Deciding to not hear the case, in effect is a decision in favor of the husband. Is it not? :spock:

Amnorix
03-24-2005, 09:34 AM
That's a really bad headline, and I noticed the AP did the same thing. Both stories' titles make it sound like the Court decided in the husband's favor when really they decided not to hear the case.

I hear you, but I'm not sure how else you would phrase it, really. Technically, the SC denied certiorari, but that's a meaningless phrase to any non-lawyer...

Amnorix
03-24-2005, 09:58 AM
Deciding to not hear the case, in effect is a decision in favor of the husband. Is it not? :spock:

Yes, in effect, but Cochise is arguing a narrow point.

There's two things that could have happened in the husband's favor:

1. The court grants certiorari, hears argument, reviews briefs, and renders a decision upholding the lower court's ruling; or

2. The court declines to hear the case at all. This is not a "decision" on the merits of the case at all. It's not a ruling about anything at all. It's just a decision that "we're not going to deal with this".

What Cochise is saying is that the headline sounds like option #1, when what happened was option #2.

trndobrd
03-24-2005, 10:18 AM
Yes, in effect, but Cochise is arguing a narrow point.

There's two things that could have happened in the husband's favor:

1. The court grants certiorari, hears argument, reviews briefs, and renders a decision upholding the lower court's ruling; or

2. The court declines to hear the case at all. This is not a "decision" on the merits of the case at all. It's not a ruling about anything at all. It's just a decision that "we're not going to deal with this".

What Cochise is saying is that the headline sounds like option #1, when what happened was option #2.


Generally, the SC won't grant certiorari unless there is a difference in rulings between the Circuits. That is to say, the SC is usually not in the business of reviewing the facts as found in the lower courts, just settling differences of Constitutional interpretation between Courts of Appeal.

This case is very fact intensive. I certainly haven't ready the petitions, but I'm guessing there are few new Constitutional issues in this case.

Cochise
03-24-2005, 10:48 AM
Yes, in effect, but Cochise is arguing a narrow point.

There's two things that could have happened in the husband's favor:

1. The court grants certiorari, hears argument, reviews briefs, and renders a decision upholding the lower court's ruling; or

2. The court declines to hear the case at all. This is not a "decision" on the merits of the case at all. It's not a ruling about anything at all. It's just a decision that "we're not going to deal with this".

What Cochise is saying is that the headline sounds like option #1, when what happened was option #2.

That's what I meant. I see things like this all the time that look like a subtle bias from some media outlets. To the passive the headline makes it look like the Supreme Court decided against the parents (and by extension sanctioned the right of someone to unplug their relatives even when their wishes aren't clear)

I dont think the average person knows that the supreme court only hears, what, probably 1% or less of the appeals filed to them.

I just thought it bore pointing out, that they didn't decide the case, they decided not to decide anything.

"It simply means that fewer than four members of the Court deemed it desirable to review a decision of the lower court as a matter "of sound judicial discretion."

Amnorix
03-24-2005, 10:55 AM
That's what I meant. I see things like this all the time that look like a subtle bias from some media outlets. To the passive the headline makes it look like the Supreme Court decided against the parents (and by extension sanctioned the right of someone to unplug their relatives even when their wishes aren't clear)

I agree as to what the headline may be misinterpreted as, but the problem here is that the press is pandering to the masses, and it's a headline. "Court Declines to Hear Schiavo Appeal" is about the shortest truly accurate description I can think of, and it's both too long and not real catchy. I'm also not sure it's a truly meaningful distinction.

I dont think the average person knows that the supreme court only hears, what, probably 1% or less of the appeals filed to them.

Yeah, I'm pretty confident you're right about that. Again, though, I'm not sure how meaningful it really is. The effect is the same, as Mr. Kotter pointed out, and I'm not really sure how many people would actually care one way or the other.

Jenny Gump
03-24-2005, 10:57 AM
Yup. It's inhumane the way we sometimes treat animals, but allowing her to die this way is supposed to be "civilized?"

People who are being kept alive with a gastric feeding tube are let to die like this all the time in nursing homes. The difference is, that these people have living wills, and/or there is no contest to their wishes.

Cochise
03-24-2005, 11:02 AM
"Court Declines to Hear Schiavo Appeal" is about the shortest truly accurate description I can think of, and it's both too long and not real catchy.

I think that title would have been perfect.

I was going to go around the web and find a few headlines but I noticed the AP one has changed now. Earlier it said something like "Supreme court refuses to order tube re-inserted" but now it says "Supreme Court Rejects Terri Schiavo Case", which is much better. Maybe the editors decided to change it.

go bowe
03-24-2005, 11:03 AM
That's a really bad headline, and I noticed the AP did the same thing. Both stories' titles make it sound like the Court decided in the husband's favor when really they decided not to hear the case.actually, that's right...

refusal to grant cert (which is what i think happened) is not ruling in the husband's favor in the sense that the court has not had a full formal review of the case and is not making a ruling on the merits of the case...

but the practical effect of refusing to hear the case is to let the prior ruling stand as the final decision in the case...

Amnorix
03-24-2005, 11:05 AM
I think that title would have been perfect.

I was going to go around the web and find a few headlines but I noticed the AP one has changed now. Earlier it said something like "Supreme court refuses to order tube re-inserted" but now it says "Supreme Court Rejects Terri Schiavo Case", which is much better. Maybe the editors decided to change it.

Agreed, that's better.

One more note on this -- the REPORTERS might not have understood the difference. It's a subtle point, and most of them aren't lawyers. Just a guess, but worth noting. :shrug:

Raiderhader
03-24-2005, 11:10 AM
I guess it's over. I hope everyone involved can live with their decisions.


Ignorance is bliss. People can continue to ignore the claims that she could be rehabilitated and cite the "her brain has turned into fluid" mantra and never have any regrets.

The only way regrets would occur is if the woman were handed over to her parents and she did come around. Otherwise, blissfull ignorance rules the day.

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 11:13 AM
Ignorance is bliss. People can continue to ignore the claims that she could be rehabilitated and cite the "her brain has turned into fluid" mantra and never have any regrets.

The only way regrets would occur is if the woman were handed over to her parents and she did come around. Otherwise, blissfull ignorance rules the day.

Several of them will be along shortly to inform us how are unenlightened, full of shit, lying, manipulating, and ideological and religous zealots who don't really care about her or the issue--all we care about is scoring 'political points.' :rolleyes:

Did I miss anything??? :hmmm:

go bowe
03-24-2005, 11:21 AM
Several of them will be along shortly to inform us how are unenlightened, full of shit, lying, manipulating, and ideological and religous zealots who don't really care about her or the issue--all we care about is scoring 'political points.' :rolleyes:

Did I miss anything??? :hmmm:more :BS: ...

i've said you're full of shit when it comes to your bizarre claims as to what the law is, but i don't believe that i've ever said that all you care about is scoring political points...

i don't have any idea what motivates your :BS:, and i really don't care...

:BS: is :BS: ...

and all the rest of that (enenlightened, lying, manipulating, being ideological and religious zealots) is your description, not mine...

but if the shoe fits...

Raiderhader
03-24-2005, 11:28 AM
more :BS: ...

i've said you're full of shit when it comes to your bizarre claims as to what the law is, but i don't believe that i've ever said that all you care about is scoring political points...

i don't have any idea what motivates your :BS:, and i really don't care...

:BS: is :BS: ...

and all the rest of that (enenlightened, lying, manipulating, being ideological and religious zealots) is your description, not mine...

but if the shoe fits...


Easy Bo, he said "several of them", not all of them. And he certainly did not name you personally.

You're acting awful defensive though.... :p

Mr. Kotter
03-24-2005, 12:29 PM
Easy Bo, he said "several of them", not all of them. And he certainly did not name you personally.

You're acting awful defensive though.... :p

Thanks for responding as I would have.

patteeu
03-24-2005, 08:42 PM
There is an interesting thing that I don't know the answer to in this case. It has not been brought up.

Hypothetically...if she did have a living will and it was her wish to not to go on then it is my understanding that some form of drug is given to a patient in addition to something like a feeding tube being taken away. This is to relieve the person of any form of pain that could be felt based on he or shes condition at the time.

This makes for a bad situation because with her status in limbo from her familes fight you can't really do this. It seems as though this has led to more suffering.

I am in no way condemning them but as far as the suffering part of this situation it seems to have created a uniqe situation

Why do you say you can't really do this. I'd bet that that is exactly what they've done. My understanding is that it is SOP to load the patient up with meds when the feeding tube is withdrawn to insure that needless suffering does not occur (even in a case like this where actual suffering is unlikely anyway).

|Zach|
03-24-2005, 09:04 PM
Why do you say you can't really do this. I'd bet that that is exactly what they've done. My understanding is that it is SOP to load the patient up with meds when the feeding tube is withdrawn to insure that needless suffering does not occur (even in a case like this where actual suffering is unlikely anyway).
I am not a doctor so if I am offbase I welcome better information.

But I would think the drugs given would do the job that is intended but comprimise someone's health who is in a fragile state. Do strange things with their heart etc.

So if she was given something of that nature.

Of course of this is done to ease someone's death it is not a problem...but if the people still want this person to be alive they wouldn't be given.

Can anyone shed more light on this?