YNKYH8R

Parents of Schiavo to appeal to higher court
Clock ticks for brain-damaged woman after removal of feeding tube

The Associated Press
Updated: 1:18 p.m. ET March 22, 2005


TAMPA, Fla. - The parents of Terri Schiavo quickly filed a notice of appeal on Tuesday, moving the life-and-death case of their severely brain-damaged daughter to a higher court, after a federal judge refused to order the reinsertion of Schiavo’s feeding tube.

Michael Schiavo, who has long sought to end the life-supporting feedings, arguing that his wife would not want to be kept alive in a permanent vegetative state, won the right to remove the tube. The removal, which took place on Friday, spurred a flurry of legislative and legal maneuvering locally and in Washington, where Congress passed and President Bush signed legislation allowing the case to be reviewed by the federal courts.

Tuesday's ruling denied an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman’s parents to reinsert the tube. U.S. District Judge James Whittemore said the 41-year-old woman’s parents had not established a “substantial likelihood of success” at trial on the merits of their arguments.

The notice of appeal was filed electronically hours later with the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta by David Gibbs III, an attorney for Terri Schiavo’s parents. The notice tells the court that the full appeal will follow. That court was already considering an appeal on whether Terri Schiavo’s right to due process had been violated.


White House puts hope in appeals process
Whittemore wrote that Schiavo’s “life and liberty interests” had been protected by Florida courts. Despite “these difficult and time strained circumstances,” he wrote, “this court is constrained to apply the law to the issues before it.”

No further hearings were scheduled before Whittemore.

The Bush administration “would have preferred a different ruling,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters in Albuquerque, N.M., where the president was visiting a senior center.

“We hope that they would be able to have relief through the appeals process,” McClellan said.

While Rex Sparklin, another attorney for the parents, said the appeal was needed to “save Terri’s life,” Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, praised the ruling.

“What this judge did is protect the freedom of people to make their own end-of-life decisions without the intrusion of politicians,” Simon said.


'Absolutely barbaric'
Bobby Schindler, Terri Schiavo’s brother, said his family was crushed. “To have to see my parents go through this is absolutely barbaric,” he told ABC’s “Good Morning America” on Tuesday. “I’d love for these judges to sit in a room and see this happening as well.”

Attempts to reach the woman’s father, Bob Schindler, were unsuccessful early Tuesday. George Felos, the attorney for husband Michael Schiavo, hung up twice when reached by reporters from The Associated Press.

But Scott Schiavo, Michael Schiavo’s brother, called the judge’s decision “a good thing,” and said he did not believe Congress should have intervened.


“There’s not a law that’s made for this,” Scott Schiavo said in a telephone interview. “This is something that goes on 100 times a day in our country, that people, their wish to die with dignity is not a federal issue.”

Schiavo's feeding tube was disconnected Friday on the orders of a state judge, prompting an extraordinary weekend effort by congressional Republicans to push through unprecedented emergency legislation Monday aimed at keeping her alive.

Louise Cleary, a spokeswoman for Woodside Hospice, said she could not discuss Terri Schiavo’s condition Tuesday. “To honor the privacy of all of our patients, we couldn’t comment,” Cleary said.

Gov. Jeb Bush was described by a spokeswoman as “extremely disappointed and saddened” by the federal judge’s decision not to order the tube reconnected. “Gov. Bush will continue to do what he legally can within his powers to protect Terri Schiavo, a vulnerable person,” said spokeswoman Alia Faraj.

Interpreting Schiavo's wishes
Terri Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband has fought in courts for years to have the tube removed because, he said, she would not want to be kept alive artificially and she has no hope for recovery. Her parents contend she responds to them and that her condition could improve.

Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery. Doctors have said she could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.

Gibbs argued at a Monday hearing in front of Whittemore that letting Terri Schiavo starve would be “a mortal sin” under her Roman Catholic beliefs and urged quick action: “Terri may die as I speak.”

But Felos argued that keeping the woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.

“Yes, life is sacred,” Felos said. “So is liberty, particularly in this country.”

Michael Schiavo said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president intervened in a private matter. “When Terri’s wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord,” he said on CNN’s “Larry King Live” late Monday.

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly. Her collapse was later linked to a potassium imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder. A successful malpractice lawsuit argued that doctors had failed to diagnose the eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.

According to a CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll of 909 adults taken over the weekend, nearly six in 10 people said they think the feeding tube should be removed and felt they would want to remove it for a child or spouse in the same condition.

__________________
ARMPIT

nightrider127

Excuseme, could you post more about this?

__________________
Missing Mommy and Daddy.
Missing my Lady,Dingo, Mitzi and Spud.
Missing my Aunt Ann.

Jolie Rouge

This has been the heart of the dispute. Not all reports or Doctors agree in this matter.


I think it would be more humane to simply give her a "lethal injection" and let you go peacefuly to sleep than to starve her to death over a period of 15 or more days.



This makes no sense - eigther she IS in a "persistant vegetative state" or she IS NOT -- speech is a sign that she is not in PVS and that what M is having done is tantemount to murder - legally pursued or not.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

excuseme

if you google "sun hudson" you find a wealth of information. here is some of it:


Bush-Signed '99 Law Allows Feeding Tube Removal Over Parent's Wishes
At 2 p.m. today [03.15.05], a medical staffer at Texas Children's Hospital gently removed the breathing tube that had kept Sun Hudson alive since his Sept. 25 birth. Cradled by his mother, he took a few breaths, and died....Sun's death marks the first time a hospital has been allowed by a U.S. judge to discontinue an infant's life-sustaining care against a parent's wishes, according to bioethical experts...Texas law [signed by Bush] allows hospitals can discontinue life sustaining care, even if patient family members disagree. A doctor's recommendation must be approved by a hospital's ethics committee, and the family must be given 10 days from written notice of the decision to try and locate another facility for the patient. --Houston Chronicle



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Texas Hospital Doctor Ties Bush Feeding Tube Law To Ability To Pay
"A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday. Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive. --Houston Chronicle

___________________

http://www.premack.com/columns/1999/990813.htm

Dear Mr. Premack: I came across your column from June 4, 1999 concerning the new bill on health care legalities. Was it passed by the legislature and signed into law? Do you have any pertinent information about the how the bill affects us, and what documents we should have if it becomes law? Thanks! – D. J. P.

The bill you refer to was SB 1260, and it did pass both houses of the Texas legislature. Governor Bush was required to veto or sign it before June 20, 1999 – and he returned from a campaign trip just in time to sign the bill into law. Its effective date is September 1, 1999, so we have about two more weeks under the old laws before the new statute takes over.

The new statute is called the Texas "Advance Directives Act." It could have a profound effect on Seniors and anyone else who finds themselves caught in the cogs of the health care establishment. The law updates three important but outdated statutes: the Natural Death law, the Health Care Power of Attorney law, and the Do-Not-Resuscitate law.

First, we’ll look at how the new statute changes the Natural Death law (and next Friday we’ll look at the other topics). Our Natural Death law authorizes you to sign a "directive to physicians," expressing your instruction to stay off artificial life support when it will do nothing but delay the moment of death. The new statute calls this a "Directive to Physicians, Family or Surrogates," recognizing that your doctor is not the only person who needs to receive your instructions.

The new statute liberalizes the situations under which you can avoid artificial life support. Under it, life support can be withheld or withdrawn if you have a terminal condition that is expected to cause your death within six months. The old law required death to be "imminent" or due shortly. This allows you, as a patient, to avoid life support at an earlier date and gives you more control over the final months of life.

The new statute also authorizes you to avoid artificial life support if you have an "irreversible condition" from which you are expected to die. There is no time limit imposed by the new statute. Theoretically, this could be used to remove life support from a comatose patient, even if life support could have maintained the vital signs for years.

There was a potential legal conflict if you signed both a Directive and a Health Care Power of Attorney under the old laws. In both documents, you could choose surrogate decision-makers in case you became too ill to care for yourself. If your decision-makers were two different people, they could argue about your health care. The Advance Directives Act consolidates the laws, eliminating this conflict by requiring your decision-makers to follow the instructions you give in your Directive. A new disclosure provision also warns you to select the same person as decision-maker in both documents.

You are not legally required to throw away your old Directive. It is still valid after September 1st. On the other hand, you old Directive will continue to follow the old law – you will not receive the benefits of the new statute unless you sign a new, updated Directive. You can obtain the forms through our Legal Forms Store.

excuseme

Law Bush signed as Texas governor prompts cries of hypocrisy

Mon Mar 21, 7:22 PM ET

By William Douglas, Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The federal law that President Bush (news - web sites) signed early Monday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists.

In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.

Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected.

"The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.

While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile.

"The mother down in Texas must be reading the Schiavo case and scratching her head," said Dr. Howard Brody, the director of Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences. "This does appear to be a contradiction."

Brody said that, in taking up the Schiavo case, Bush and Congress had shattered a body of bioethics law and practice.

"This is crazy. It's political grandstanding," he said.

Bush's apparent shift on right-to-die decisions wasn't lost on Democrats. During heated debate on the Schiavo case, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., accused Bush of hypocrisy.

"It appears that President Bush felt, as governor, that there was a point which, when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made, even over the objection of family members," Wasserman Schultz said. "There is an obvious conflict here between the president's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was governor of Texas."

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan termed Wasserman Schultz's remarks "uninformed accusations" and denied that there was any conflict in Bush's positions on the two laws.

"The legislation he signed (early Monday) is consistent with his views," McClellan said. "The (1999) legislation he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients ... prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections."

Wasserman Schultz stuck by her remarks when told of McClellan's comments.

"It's a fact in black and white," she said. "It's a direct conflict on the position he has in the Schiavo case."

Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University Law School associate professor who helped draft the Texas law, said he saw no inconsistency in Bush's stands.

"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."

Bush himself framed the Schiavo decision this way Monday.

"This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life," the president said during a Social Security (news - web sites) event in Tucson, Ariz. He didn't mention the 1999 Texas law.

Jolie Rouge

several items posted in this thread on this case .....


(How very sad ... )


Several important points differ from the Schiavo case ....

Sun Hudson had been diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder called thanatophoric dysplasia, a condition characterized by a tiny chest and lungs too small to support life. He had been on a ventilator since birth.

Texas law allows hospitals to end life support in cases such as this but requires that families be given 10 days to find another facility to care for the patient. No hospital was found to take the baby.

Texas Children's Hospital officials have said no treatment can save Sun, and they want to remove him from life support. Hospital lawyers said state officials have contacted almost 40 facilities and none have been willing to care for the infant.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

nightrider127

Thanks Jolie. I hadn't seen the posts. I just didn't know what that post was talking about.

__________________
Missing Mommy and Daddy.
Missing my Lady,Dingo, Mitzi and Spud.
Missing my Aunt Ann.

YNKYH8R

That's so side. Maybe they shouls "err on the side of life."

__________________
ARMPIT

Jolie Rouge

This thread has well over 200 posts now .. you mean you have not studied each and every one ??

There are so many issues involved and everyone is trying to do "their best" in these cases. Marie died in NICU without us ever having to make this type of choice.

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

Jolie Rouge

Need another cup of coffee ??

Kind of an ironic comment considering your sig ....

__________________
Laissez les bon temps rouler! Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.** a 4 day work week & sex slaves ~ I say Tyt for PRESIDENT! Not to be taken internally, literally or seriously ....Suki ebaynni IS THAT BETTER ?

YankeeMary

You are right it doesn't say that, it is just assumed (for lack of better word)... Our nation was founded as a secular government, based on the authority of "We, the People," not a god, king, or dictator. My bad I should have clarified my statement better.

__________________
The more you complain, the longer God makes you live.