Florida case

[Guest choti]

There is a court battle being fought in Florida right now. A women who has been in a vegetative state for 15 years with no hope for improvement is under her husband's guardianship. He wants her feeding tube removed, saying she would never want to be kept alive this way. Her parents are fighting to keep her alive.

 

What's everyone's take on this issue? What are the patient's rights? Let's say the husband is wrong, and she would want to keep living. Are hospitals entitled to remove the feeding tube anyway? I'm not sure what the law says on this issue.

[Guest everyoneloveschem]

I think the problem with that case is that the woman had no living will, so what the hospital is going on is the husband saying that his wife would not have wanted to be kept alive the way she is. The family is fighting him (I think they have strong religious convictions) and now everyone and their dog is getting involved: the governor (sp?) of Florida, the President (he said he would sign something ordering them to re-insert her feeding tube if it came from the Senate I believe), the Focus on the Family group, business men offering millions to keep her alive, etc.

It is kind of sad to me. I feel for the husband, having to keep hanging on to his wife, when he really should probably be moving on (though I read today that he has a live in wife and kids by her, so it looks like he has moved on). I also feel for the family. If he has moved on, what are his motives to his comatose wife, he obviously has no hope for her recovery, so why not let the family take over? Or does he actually feel really strongly that being disconnected is what she would have wanted and thus is defending her wishes? Hard to say. What is the purpose of keeping her alive? What are the odds she will all of a sudden regain consciousness with all her cognitive functions, ie., why is family so vehement about keeping her alive? A faint hope?

[Guest choti]

at what point do we disregard a patient's living will, or do we? Suppose the Florida patient had a living will that said she wanted to be kept alive no matter what. Would the hospital be obliged to keep on a feeding tube for another 10, 20, 30 years?

[Guest cmitchelca]

From a case that I saw, yeah, you would keep them alive until they were legally dead (ie. no brain activity in Canada). In this case I saw recently, there was a woman who was in a coma for something like 10 or 15 years or something crazy like that (I know it was over 10). Anyway, after being in a coma for over a decade and being kept alive for that long (because she had said she wanted to be), she woke up and was fine. It took her a while to adjust obviously, but other than that, there was nothing wrong with her. So, in that case anyway, they did keep her alive for a really long time because they knew that's what she wanted.

[Guest UWOMED2005]

choti - the system would have to keep feeding and keep this patient alive until she was dead from other causes if she had a living will specifically stating that is what she'd want.

 

Our system is setup to do all measures to keep someone alive, unless there is specific instructions from the patient or proxy not to. Cost and whether such measures are truly in the patients best interest are not a factor, the patient's last known perogative is king. That is why we break ribs, shock patients and stick tubes down their throat. . . even when we know there is almost zero chance of a good outcome, unless the patient has specifically instructed us "do not resuscitate."

 

On my ICU rotation, we kept one patient alive for 8 weeks basically because the family didn't want to admit there was no hope and the patient had no prior expressed wishes. This patient had suffered 3 MIs secondary to cocaine use leaving him with almost no heart function and an unexplained problem with his lungs. He was entirely dependent on respirator support and inotropes (drugs to artificially help the heart pump harder.) The only hope was a heart-lung transplant but he was not a candidate both due to his history and the fact he never would have survived the procedure. His heart stopped more than 6 times during his hospital stay. . . a couple of times he was down long enough that we seriously had to question how much brain activity he had left. But because he wasn't 'DNR,' each time his heart stopped we brought him back. . . broke his ribs, shocked him, the works. Total cost to the system was probably $150,000 - 200,000 dollars.

 

On a note of interest only, I did an elective in South Africa where the situation was very different. There, resources are at a premium and they can't send every patient like the one above to the ICU. As a result, doctors use "medical DNRs" much more frequently. . . in other words, the doctors themselves decide resuscitation is inappropriate and order the DNR. Techniquely, medical DNRs are an option in Canada but are never used. . .

 

I don't know, though, if a doctor in SA could order the removal of a feeding tube. That's somewhat one step further.

 

There is another discussion of this case here - let's try to combine the threads, and the other thread has a few more posts.

[Guest HMOSH]

UWOMED,

In the council on ethical and judicial affairs handbook on code of medical ethics (American Medical Association) there is a specific paragraph that deals with medical futility in end of life care.

There is an excerpt that says "there are mecessary value judgments involved involved in the assessment of futility. These judjments must give consideration to patient or proxy assessment of futility. These judgments must give consideration to patient or proxy assessments of a worthwhile outcome..... they should also take into account the physician or the health providers perception of intent in treatment which should not be to prolong the dying process without benefit to the patient or to others with ligitimate interests." The paragraph goes on to describe a prescription to resolve any confilicts that might arise between the health care provider and the patient or the relatives ultimately saying that as long as due course is observed (attempts to resolve what constitute medical treatment futility by institutional ethics committees) the hospital can refuse further care either by transfering care to a hospital that will care for the patient or stopping the care altogether if continuity of futile care is not possible by transfer of care. Why did your hospital agree to artificially keep the patient alive?

[Guest VwDubber]

For anyone who is interested ... here is a normal CAT Scan:

 

 

Now here is Terri's CAT Scan:

 

 

Unfortunately, there is a lot of atrophy and look at the size of her ventricles !!!!

 

I can't begin to imagine how hard this must be on everyone involved.

 

Congress is butting in where it doesn't belong.

 

Another complication to this case is that Terri's husband has moved on and now he cannot get married because Terri is still alive and unable to sign the divorce papers.

[Guest tea]

interesting.

 

now, what if's: what if someone deliberately speed up the dying process (well without food or water, they said she may live upto 2 weeks), would this person then be charged with homicide? How do you define a person as "dead"? no brain activities? unresponsive?

 

somehow, though i sympathize with his situation, i question terri's husband motives for the tube removal. Congress: instead of passing the case to the federal court, why can't they come up with something to pass the care of Terri over to her family and let her husband marry someone else? oh well... just me and my wishful thinking.

 

btw Vwd... how did you get Terri's scan? isn't that part of her medical file which technically is confidential?

[Guest UWOMED2005]

Why did your hospital agree to artificially keep the patient alive?

 

Technically, in Canada doctors can order medical DNRs and refuse care for patients. But these are rarely used unless there are extreme mitigating circumstances, and usually used when it is felt family members are not making decisions as the patient would have wanted it. One of the ICU-anaesthetists talked to our class about medical DNRs, and she mentioned she'd seen maybe a handful (less than 5) in her entire career.

 

In North America, we pretty much always err on the 'life' side of the equation when there is a doubt about autonomy or life. We pretty much always err on the side of life when the question is resources vs life.

 

now, what if's: what if someone deliberately speed up the dying process (well without food or water, they said she may live upto 2 weeks), would this person then be charged with homicide? How do you define a person as "dead"? no brain activities? unresponsive?

 

Darn - I wish I had my CLEO notes with me so I could give you exact wording. But we definitely CAN speed up the dying process in the interest of palliative care, as long as our primary intent is not speeding up the process but rather something else like pain relief. The wording of this is pretty key so I'll try to find that and post it as an edit. Anyways, we do this sort of thing all the time when we give high doses of morphine and benzodiazepenes (ie sleeping pills) to make patients more comfortable. This has consistently been seen to be reasonable.

 

As well, feeding tubes have been removed before without problem as they are considered a medical intervention. The only issues in the Schiavo case are a) what Terry would have wanted and which family members represent that, her husband or her parents the fact she's now been alive for 15 years so pulling her feeding tube seems different than not placing one in the first place and c) the media frenzy surrounding the case.

 

Medicolegally and ethically, the only consideration is a). And this has already been debated in court how many times? It's the courts that have to decide this question. This case is open and shut otherwise - the republicans and Bush have no idea what they are getting themselves into, and could end up goofing up a lot of history of medical ethics with these interventions.

 

why can't they come up with something to pass the care of Terri over to her family and let her husband marry someone else? oh well... just me and my wishful thinking

 

I don't think this is the issue at all. If it was, Michael Schiavo could just divorce Terry and move on. After all, he's already involved with somebody else. I think the issue is that Michael Schiavo honestly believes Terry would rather be dead than in her current state, based on some conversations he reports having with her before she coded in 1990.

[Guest medeng]

Quote:why can't they come up with something to pass the care of Terri over to her family and let her husband marry someone else? oh well... just me and my wishful thinking

 

just a technical question not really relevant to this discussion, as michael schiavo doesn't want to give up his rights, but it would be possible for him to cede his rights to her parents, right?

[Guest VwDubber]

btw Vwd... how did you get Terri's scan? isn't that part of her medical file which technically is confidential?

It's available for educational purposes at one of the US schools.

 

For anyone that is interested, here is a timeline of key events in this case:

 

 

Timeline

 

 

December 3, 1963

 

Theresa (Terri) Marie Schiavo is born.

 

 

 

Novermber 1984

 

Terri and Michael Schiavo are married.

 

 

 

February 25, 1990

Terri Schiavo suffers cardiac arrest, apparently caused by a potassium imbalance and leading to brain damage due to lack of oxygen. She was taken to the Humana Northside Hospital and was later given a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) to provide nutrition and hydration.

 

 

 

May 12, 1990

 

Terri Schiavo is discharged from the hospital and taken to the College Park skilled care and rehabilitation facility.

 

 

 

June 18, 1990

 

Court appoints Michael Schiavo as guardian; Terri Schiavo’s parents do not object.

 

 

 

June 30, 1990

 

Terri Schiavo is transferred to Bayfront Hospital for further rehabilitation efforts.

 

 

 

September 1990

 

Terri Schiavo’s family brings her home, but three weeks later they return her to the College Park facility because the family is “overwhelmed by Terri’s care needs.”

 

 

 

November 1990

 

Michael Schiavo takes Terri Schiavo to California for experimental “brain stimulator” treatment, an experimental “thalamic stimulator implant” in her brain.

 

 

 

January 1991

 

The Schiavos return to Florida; Terri Schiavo is moved to the Mediplex Rehabilitation Center in Brandon where she receives 24-hour care.

 

 

 

July 19, 1991

 

Terri Schiavo is transferred to Sable Palms skilled care facility where she receives continuing neurological testing, and regular and aggressive speech/occupational therapy through 1994.

 

 

 

May 1992

 

Terri Schiavo’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and Michael Schiavo stop living together.

 

 

 

August 1992

 

Terri Schiavo is awarded $250,000 in an out-of-court medical malpractice settlement with one of her physicians.

 

 

 

November 1992

 

The jury in the medical malpractice trial against another of Terri’s physicians awards more than one million dollars. In the end, after attorneys’ fees and other expenses, Michael Schiavo received about $300,000 and about $750,000 was put in a trust fund specifically for Terri Schiavo’s medical care.

 

 

 

February 14, 1993

 

Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers have a falling-out over the course of therapy for Terri Schiavo; Michael Schiavo claims that the Schindlers demand that he share the malpractice money with them.

 

 

 

July 29, 1993

 

Schindlers attempt to remove Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo’s guardian; the court later dismisses the suit.

 

 

 

March 1, 1994

 

First guardian ad litem, John H. Pecarek, submits his report. He states that Michael Schiavo has acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri Schiavo.

 

 

 

May 1998

 

Michael Schiavo petitions the court to authorize the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube; the Schindlers oppose, saying that Terri would want to remain alive. The court appoints Richard Pearse, Esq., to serve as the second guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo.

 

 

 

December 20, 1998

 

The second guardian ad litem, Richard Pearse, Esq., issues his report in which he concluding that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement and that Michael Schiavo’s decision-making may be influenced by the potential to inherit the remainder of Terri Schiavo’s estate.

 

 

 

January 24, 2000

 

The trial begins; Pinellas-Pasco County Circuit Court Judge George Greer presides.

 

Testimony of Father Gerard Murphy

 

 

 

February 11, 2000

 

Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo would have chosen to have the PEG tube removed, and therefore he orders it removed, which, according to doctors, will cause her death in approximately 7 to 14 days.

 

 

 

March 2, 2000

 

The Schindlers file a petition with Judge Greer to allow “swallowing” tests to be performed on Terri Schiavo to determine if she can consume—or learn to consume—nutrients on her own.

 

 

 

March 7, 2000

 

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ petition to perform “swallowing” tests on Terri Schiavo.

 

 

 

 

 

March 24, 2000

 

Judge Greer grants Michael Schiavo’s petition to limit visitation to Terri Schiavo as well as to bar pictures. Judge Greer also stays his order until 30 days beyond the final exhaustion of all appeals by the Schindlers.

 

3-24-00 Greer Stay and Order Limiting Visitation

 

 

 

January 24, 2001

 

Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal (2nd DCA) upholds Judge Greer’s ruling that permits the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

 

In re Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (2nd DCA 2001), rehearing denied (Feb. 22, 2001), review denied, 789 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 2001). (Case No.: SC01-559)

 

1-24-01 DCA Ruling

 

 

 

February 22, 2001

 

The Schindler family’s motion for an Appellate Court rehearing is denied.

 

 

 

March 12, 2001

 

Michael Schiavo petitions Judge Greer to lift his stay, issued March 24, 2000, in order to permit the removal of Terri Shiavo’s PEG tube.

 

 

 

March 29, 2001

 

Judge Greer denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to lift stay issued on March 24, 2000; Michael Schiavo can remove Terri’s PEG tube at 1 p.m. on April 20.

 

3-29-01 Greer Order

 

 

 

April 10, 2001

 

The 2nd DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion to extend Judge Greer’s stay, which is scheduled to expire April 20, 2001.

 

4-10-01 DCA Order

 

 

 

April 12, 2001

 

The Schindlers file a motion requesting that Judge Greer recuse himself.

 

 

 

April 12, 2001

 

The Schindlers petition the Florida Supreme Court to stay the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

 

4-12-01 Motion for Stay Part 1

 

4-12-01 Motion for Stay Part 2

 

4-12-01 Court’s Request for Response from Schiavo

 

 

 

April 16, 2001

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers’ motion to recuse himself.

 

 

 

April 18, 2001

 

The Florida Supreme Court chooses not to review the decision of the 2nd DCA.

 

In re Schiavo, 789 So. 2d 248 (Fla. 2001). Case No.: SC01-559

 

3-22-01 Schindler family’s Notice to Appeal to Supreme Court

 

3-30-01 Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 1

 

3-30-01 Schindlers’ Jurisdictional Brief Part 2

 

4-18-01 Order Denying Rehearing and Motion for Stay

 

 

 

April 20, 2001

 

Federal District Court Judge Richard Lazzara grants the Schindlers a stay until April 23, 2001, to exhaust all their possible appeals.

 

 

 

April 23, 2001

 

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court refuses to stay the case for a review by that Court.

 

 

 

April 24, 2001

 

By order of trial court Judge Greer, and upon issuance of a 2nd DCA mandate, Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is removed

 

 

 

April 26, 2001

 

The Schindlers file an emergency motion with Judge Greer for relief from judgment based upon new evidence, which includes a claim that a former girlfriend of Michael Schiavo will testify that he lied about Terri Schiavo’s wishes; Judge Greer dismisses the motion as untimely. Also on this date, the Schindlers file a new civil suit that claims that Michael Schiavo perjured himself when he testified that Terri Schiavo had stated an aversion to remaining on life support. Pending this new civil trial, Circuit Court Judge Frank Quesada orders Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube to be reinserted.

 

 

 

April 30, 2001

 

Michael Schiavo files an emergency motion with the 2nd DCA to allow the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

 

 

 

May 9, 2001

 

The 2nd DCA announces a date for the hearing of oral arguments regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001.

 

 

 

June 25, 2001

 

Arguments in 2nd DCA regarding Michael Schiavo’s motion of April 30, 2001.

 

 

 

July 11, 2001

 

The 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer. (1) The 2nd DCA informs the Schindlers that they must address both their desire to have new evidence heard and their perjury claim against Michael Schiavo within the original guardianship proceeding; further, the Schindlers are instructed to file a new motion for relief from judgment in the guardianship proceeding. (2) The 2nd DCA instructs Judge Greer to weigh the Schinders’ new evidence in making a new determination of what Terri Schiavo would have wanted. (3) The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s request to discontinue the PEG tube.

 

In re Schiavo, 792 So. 2d 551 (2nd DCA 2001).

 

7-11-01 DCA Order

 

 

 

August 7, 2001

 

After the 2nd DCA remands the case back to Judge Greer, he again finds that Michael Schiavo may remove Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube on August 28.

 

 

 

August 10, 2001

 

Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motion (1) to have their own doctors examine Terri Schiavo, (2) to remove Michael Schiavo as her guardian, and (3) to disqualify himself from the proceedings.

 

 

 

August 17, 2001

Judge Greer delays the removal of Terri Schiavo's PEG tube until October 9 in order to allow the Schindlers time to appeal.

 

 

 

October 3, 2001

The 2nd DCA delays the removal of the PEG tube indefinitely.

 

 

 

October 17, 2001

 

The 2nd DCA rules that 5 doctors should examine Terri Schiavo to determine if she can improve with new medical treatment. The Schindlers and Michael Schiavo are to choose 2 doctors each, and the court is to appoint a doctor. The appeals court also affirms Greer’s denial of the motion to disqualify himself.

 

In re Schiavo, 800 So. 2d 640 (2nd DCA 2001).

 

10-17-01 DCA ruling

 

 

 

November 1, 2001

 

The 2nd DCA denies Michael Schiavo’s motion to rehear the case.

 

 

 

December 14, 2001

 

Michael Schiavo petitions the Florida Supreme Court to stay the October 17, 2001 ruling of the 2nd DCA. He states that he and the Schindlers will attempt to mediate the dispute in lieu of further litigation.

 

12-05-01 Michael Schiavo’s Notice of Appeal to the Florida Supreme Court

 

12-14-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Stay DCA’s Ruling.

 

 

 

December 19, 2001

 

Attorneys meet with a mediator to determine which tests doctors should run on Terri Schiavo.

 

 

 

January 10, 2002

 

State Supreme Court stays all legal proceedings pending mediation; it orders attorneys to report on the status of mediation in sixty days.

 

1-10-02 SC Order of Stay

 

 

 

February 13, 2002

 

Mediation between the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo fails.

 

2-13-02 Notice that Mediation failed

 

 

 

March 14, 2002

 

The Florida Supreme Court denies Michael Schiavo’s petition to review the 2nd DCA’s ruling allowing 5 doctors to examine Terri Schiavo.

 

In re Schiavo, 816 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 2002) (Table, No. SC01-2678)

 

2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Jurisdictional Petition

 

2-13-02 Michael Schiavo’s Petition to Stay ruling of 2nd DCA (10/17/01).

 

2-22-02 Court’s Order of Stay pending its final decision

 

3-01-02 Schindler’s Jurisdictional Brief

 

3-13-01 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Strike

 

3-14-01 Order Denying Schiavo’s Petition

 

3-14-01 Order to Strike

 

 

 

October 12-22, 2002

 

The trial court holds a new hearing on new potential medical treatments.

 

 

 

November 15, 2002

 

The Schindlers contend that Michael Schiavo might have abused Terri Schiavo and this abuse led to her condition. They ask the court for more time to collect evidence, and to remove Michael Schiavo as guardian.

 

11-15-02 Petition to remove MS as guardian

 

 

 

November 22, 2002

 

Judge Greer rules that Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube should be removed January 3, 2003.

 

In re Schiavo, 2002 WL 31817960 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Nov. 22, 2002) (No. 90-2908-GB-003)

 

Nov22 2002 TC trialctorder11-02.txt

 

 

 

December 13, 2002

 

Judge Greer stays his November 22 ruling: Terri Schiavo should not have her PEG tube removed until an appeals court can rule on the case.

 

 

 

December 23, 2002

 

The 2nd DCA denies a motion Michael Schiavo filed seeking permission to remove the PEG tube.

 

 

 

June 6, 2003

 

The 2nd DCA, affirming Judge Greer’s November 2002 ruling, concludes that Michael Schiavo can remove Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube on October 15.

 

In re Schiavo, 851 So. 2d 182 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D02-5394), rehearing denied (July 9, 2003), review denied 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003).

 

6-06-03 Court Opinion

 

 

 

 

 

July 9, 2003

 

The 2nd DCA refuses to reconsider its decision.

 

 

 

August 22, 2003

 

The Florida Supreme Court declines to review the decision.

 

Schindler v. Schiavo, 855 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2003) (Table, No. SC03-1242)

 

7-24-03 Notice of Schindlers' Appeal

 

7-31-03 Michael Schiavo’s Motion to Vacate

 

Court Order denying Motion to Vacate

 

8-07-03 Schindler's Petition for a Supreme Court Review

 

8-13-03 Michael Shiavo’s Response to Petition for Review

 

8-18-03 Schindlers motion for a Stay

 

8-19-03 Court Orders Schiavo to make a Respond for the Motion for Stay

 

8-20-03 Shiavo’s Response to Motion for Stay

 

8-22-03 Court Order denying Review and Motion for Stay

 

 

 

August 30, 2003

 

Terri Schiavo’s parents file a federal lawsuit challenging the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube. Schiavos’ petition (D). Schindler v. Schiavo, Civil Action No. 8:03-CV-1860-T-26-T-TGW

 

 

 

September 17, 2003

 

Judge Greer orders the removal of the PEG tube to take place on October 15, 2003. He also rejects the Schindlers’ request that Terri Schiavo be given therapy to learn how to eat without the tube.

 

9-17-03 Court Order

 

 

 

October 7, 2003

 

Governor Jeb Bush files a federal court brief in support of the Schindlers’ effort to stop the removal of the PEG tube.

 

 

 

October 10, 2003

 

Federal Court Judge Richard Lazzara rules that he lacks the jurisdiction to hear the federal case.

 

 

 

October 14, 2003

 

The 2nd DCA refuses to block Judge Greer’s order to remove the PEG tube.

 

 

 

October 15, 2003

 

Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is once again removed.

 

 

 

October 17, 2003

 

The Florida Circuit Court in Pinellas County and the First District Court of Appeal refuse to grant a request made by the “supporters” of the Schindlers to direct Governor Jeb Bush to intervene in the Schiavo case.

 

 

 

October 19, 2003

 

The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. files a federal court lawsuit that claims that the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is abuse and neglect.

 

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, No. 8:03-CV-2167-T-23EAJ

 

 

 

October 20, 2003

 

The Florida House of Representatives passes a bill, “Terri’s Law,” that allows the governor to issue a “one-time stay in certain cases.”

 

HouseBill35-E.pdf

 

 

 

October 21, 2003

 

The Florida Senate passes the bill; Governor Bush issues an executive order directing reinsertion of the PEG tube and appointing a guardian ad litem for Terri Schiavo.

 

Schiavo Controversy Fla_ Gov_ Exec_ Order No_ 03-201.htm

 

Statements by some House members

 

 

 

October 21, 2003

 

Michael Schiavo files a state-court lawsuit arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional and seeking an injunction to stop the reinsertion of the PEG tube; the court requests briefs on the Constitutional arguments about “Terri’s Law.”

 

10-21-03 Schiavo Injunction

Amicus Brief from House Speaker Byrd (

Schiavo v. Bush. No. 03-008212-CI-20 (Cir. Ct. Pinellas County, Florida).

 

 

 

October 21, 2003

 

The federal court denies the motion for a temporary restraining order filed in the lawsuit of the Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc.

 

Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities, Inc. v. Schiavo, 2003 WL 23305833, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 21, 2003).

 

10-21-03 US District Court Order

 

 

 

October 21, 2003

 

Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube is reinserted.

 

 

 

October 22 2003

 

David Demeres, Chief Judge for the Pinellas County Circuit Court, orders both the Schindlers and Michael Schiavo to agree within 5 days on an independent guardian ad litem as required under the Governor’s order. (“Terri’s Law” directs: “Upon issuance of the stay, the chief judge of the circuit court shall appoint a guardian ad litem for the patient to make recommendations to the Governor and the court.”)

 

Schiavo's Response

 

Schindlers' Response

 

 

 

October 28, 2003

 

President George W. Bush praises the way his brother, Governor Jeb Bush, has handled the Schiavo matter.

 

Transcript of Rose Garden Press Conference

 

 

 

October 29, 2003

 

Michael Schiavo files court papers in his state-court lawsuit, arguing that “Terri’s Law” is unconstitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union has joined Michael Schiavo.

 

Michael Schiavo petitioner brief

 

 

 

October 31, 2003

 

Judge Demers appoints Dr. Jay Wolfson as Terri Schiavo’s guardian ad litem. Dr. Wolfson holds both medical and legal degrees; he is also a public health professor at the University of South Florida. He is supposed to represent Terri Schiavo’s best interest in court, but he has no authority to make decisions for her.

 

10-31-03 GAL Appointment

 

 

 

November 4, 2003

 

Governor Jeb Bush asks Circuit Court Judge W. Douglas Baird to dismiss Michael Schiavo’s suit (filed October 21, 2003) that challenges “Terri’s Law.”

 

 

 

November 8, 2003

 

Judge Baird denies Governor Bush’s motion to dismiss the state-court suit.

 

 

 

November 10, 2003

 

Governor Bush appeals Judge Baird’s decision; the filing of the appeal has the effect of staying the removal of Terri Schiavo’s PEG tube.

 

 

 

November 14, 2003

 

Judge Baird vacates the stay.

 

11-14-03 Order vacating stay.

 

 

 

November 14, 2003

 

In response to Judge Baird’s lifting the stay, the 2nd DCA issues an indefinite stay.

 

 

 

November 19, 2003

 

Governor Bush files a petition to remove Judge Baird.

 

11-19-03 Petition

 

 

 

November 21, 2003

 

Florida Sens. Stephen Wise and Jim Sebesta introduce legislation (S692) that would require persons in persistent vegetative states to be administered medically supplied nutrition and hydration in the absence of a living will, regardless of family beliefs about what those patients would have wanted. The measure is withdrawn from consideration on April 16, 2004.

 

Bill to require sustenence when no living will exists

 

 

 

 

 

December 1, 2003

 

Jay Wolfson, guardian ad litem, concludes in his report that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state with no chance of improvement.

 

Wolfson's Report

 

Governor Bush's response to Wolfson's report

 

 

 

December 10, 2003

 

The 2nd DCA refuses to remove Judge Baird, who is the presiding judge in the state-court lawsuit filed October 21, 2003.

 

Bush v. Schiavo, 861 So. 2d 506 (2nd DCA 2003) (No. 2D03-5244)

 

12-10-03 Court Opinion

 

 

 

January 5, 2004

 

The Schindler family petitions the Pinellas County Circuit Court to reappoint Jay Wolfson, the guardian ad litem.

 

1-05-04 Schindlers petition to reappoint GAL

 

 

 

January 8, 2004

 

Judge Demers rejects the request to reappoint the guardian ad litem, citing the pending court decisions over the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law” as reason to wait on any action.

 

1-08-04 Order denying reinstatement of GAL

 

 

 

 

 

February 13, 2004

 

The 2nd DCA reverses Judge Baird’s ruling (in the case filed October 21, 2003) that denied the Schindlers permission to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s Constitutional challenge to “Terri’s Law.” The 2nd DCA explains that Judge Baird did not follow proper procedure. The court also gives permission to Governor Bush to question several witnesses who Judge Baird previously had ruled could not offer any relevant testimony.

 

Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 140 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2004) (on intervention); 866 So. 2d 136 (2nd DCA 2004) (on request to take depositions). (Case No. 2D03-5783).

 

bushschiavo2 13 04 opn.pdf

 

2-13-04 Opinion allowing parents to intervene

 

 

 

March 12, 2004

 

Judge Baird again rejects the Schindlers’ request to intervene in Michael Schiavo’s suit that questions the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law.”

 

 

 

March 20, 2004

Pope John Paul II addresses World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and Pontifical Academy for Life Congress on "Life-Sustaining Treatments and Vegetative State: Scientific Advances and Ethical Dilemmas." His remarks spark widespread interest and controversy.

Pope's address

 

 

 

March 29, 2004

 

Nursing home workers discover 4 “fresh puncture wounds” on one arm and a fifth wound on the other arm; the workers state that a hypodermic needle appears to have caused the wounds. Attendants discovered the wounds shortly after the Schindlers visited Terri Schiavo for 45 minutes. Toxicology reports indicate that no substance was injected into Terri Schiavo. Clearwater police later conclude that the marks might have been made by a device used to move Ms. Schiavo and, in any case, that no evidence of abuse or other wrongdoing could be found.

St. Petersburg Times report (May 15, 2004)

 

 

 

March 29, 2004

 

Judge Greer denies a motion filed by the Schindlers seeking to have Michael Schiavo defend himself in a hearing; they allege that he is violating a 1996 court order that requires him to share a sufficient amount of Terri Schiavo’s medical information. Michael Schiavo claims that he has shared an adequate amount of information through attorneys.

 

 

 

April 16, 2004

S692 is withdrawn from consideration in the Florida Legislature.

S692 History

 

 

 

April 23, 2004

The 2nd DCA rules that the Pinellas County trial court has jurisdiction to hear and is the proper venue for the case Michael Schiavo has filed against Governor Bush asserting that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional.

 

2nd DCA Jurisdictional ruling

 

 

 

May 6, 2004

 

Pinellas Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird rules that "Terri's Law," sought and signed by Gov. Bush and approved by the Legislature on October 21, 2003, is unconstitutional. The governor appeals the ruling.

 

Judge Baird's order

 

 

 

 

June 1, 2004

 

The 2nd DCA grants a motion from attorneys for Michael Schiavo to send the case directly to the Florida

Supreme Court and bypass a lower-court review. Meanwhile, attorneys for Gov. Bush file a motion asking that all appeals be halted until the issue of whether Michael Schiavo has the authority to fight the governor on his wife's behalf is resolved.

 

Tallahassee Democrat report

 

 

 

 

June 16, 2004

 

Florida's Supreme Court, pointing to "a question of great public importance requiring immediate resolution by this Court," accepts jurisdiction and sets oral arguments for August 31, 2004.

 

Florida Supreme Court order

 

 

 

 

 

June 30, 2004

 

2nd DCA affirms Judge Baird's March 12 ruling denying the Schindlers the ability to intervene in the lawsuit over the constitutionality of "Terri's Law."

 

 

 

July 19, 2004

The Schindlers file a motion in the Circuit Court for Pinellas County seeking relief from judgment in Schindler v. Schiavo. Based in part upon the recent statement by Pope John Paul II, they argue that the orders mandating withdrawal of the PEG tube from Terri and authorizing Michael to challenge the constitutionality of "Terri's Law" violate her "free exercise of her religious beliefs [and] her right to enjoy and defend her own life and, in fact, imperil her immortal soul."

Relief from judgment motion

Appendix to motion (seven exhibits)

 

 

 

July 27, 2004

 

National group of bioethicists files amicus brief "in support of Michael Schiavo as guardian of the person."

 

Bioethicists' amicus brief

 

 

 

August 31, 2004

 

The Florida Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the lawsuit over the

constitutionality of "Terri's Law."

 

Streaming video of the proceedings, archived by WFSU at Florida State University

 

Transcript

 

St. Petersburg Times report

 

 

 

August 31, 2004

Circuit Judge George Greer, opposed for re-election by an attorney who was known to oppose Greer's rulings in the Schiavo case, is re-elected by a large margin.

 

St. Petersburg Times report

 

 

 

September 23, 2004

 

Florida's Supreme Court, unanimously affirming the trial court order, declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional.

Supreme Court ruling

 

 

 

October 4, 2004

 

Governor Bush files a motion and then an amended motion for rehearing and clarification of the Florida Supreme Court opinion issued on September 23, 2004

 

Amended motion for rehearing and clarification

 

 

 

October 21, 2004

Florida Supreme Court denies Governor Bush's amended motion for rehearing and clarification, as well as a motion seeking permission to file a second amended motion for rehearing and clarification. The Court issues a mandate.

 

Order

 

 

 

October 22, 2004

 

In Pinellas County, at the trial-court level, Judge Greer denies the motion filed by the Schindlers on July 19, 2004. He also stays the removal of her PEG tube until December 6, 2004.

Order Denying Motion

Order Granting Stay

 

 

 

October 25, 2004

Governor Bush files a motion with the Florida Supreme Court asking that it recall the mandate it issued on October 22 because he will be filing a petition for certiorari regarding this case with the United States Supreme Court.

Motion to Recall Mandate

 

Appendix to Motion

 

 

 

October 27, 2004

Florida Supreme Court grants Governor Bush's motion asking that it recall the mandate issued on October 22. Proceedings in the trial and all appellate courts in the case of Bush v. Schiavo are stayed until November 29, 2004.

 

Order Recalling Mandate

 

 

 

November 22, 2004

 

In the guardianship proceeding in Pinellas County, the Schindlers appeal from Judge Greer’s October 22 order denying their motion for relief from judgment.

Brief Seeking Review

 

 

 

December 3, 2004

Governor Bush files a petition for certiorari, seeking review of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision regarding Terri’s law, with the U.S. Supreme Court.

U.S. Supreme Court Docket

Petition for Writ of Certiorari

 

 

December 29, 2004

2nd DCA, without opinion, denies the Schindlers' November 22 appeal from Judge Greer's order refusing to reopen the guardianship proceeding.

 

 

 

January 10, 2005

The Schindlers again ask Judge Greer to remove Michael Schiavo from his judicial appointed post of Terri’s guardian.

 

January 13, 2005

The Schindlers file two motions – one in the 2d DCA, asking it to reconsider its decision of December 29, 2004, and a second in the trial court guardianship proceeding, asking Judge Greer once again to prevent withdrawal of nutrition and hydration until the 2d DCA does so.

 

January 24, 2005

The United States Supreme Court refused to grant review of the case in which the Florida Supreme Court struck down “Terri’s Law” as unconstitutional.

 

February 7, 2005

Florida's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services cites the Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation for failing to register with the state to solicit donations.

 

February 11, 2005

In Pinellas County, Judge Greer denies the Schindlers' motions, filed January 10 and 13, 2005. The order authorizing withdrawal of the PEG tube remains in effect, although implementation is stayed pending the outcome of currently pending appeals.

 

February 15, 2005

The Schindlers ask the 2nd DCA to stay the mandate issued when it refused to hear their most recent appeal.

 

February 16, 2005

Randall Terry, founder of the pro-life activist organization Operation Rescue, appears with the Schindlers at a news conference, vowing protest vigils against removal of the PEG tube.

 

February 18, 2005

The Schindlers again petition Judge Greer in Pinellas County for reconsideration of the order of February 11, 2005, in which the court upheld its judgment, made in the year 2000, that the PEG tube should be removed.

 

February 18, 2005

Florida Representatives Baxley Brown; Cannon; Davis, D.; Flores; Goldstein; Lopez-Cantera; Murzin; Quinones; Traviesa introduced H 701 in the Florida Legislature. H 701, mirroring S. 692 (introduced in October 2003 and withdrawn in April 2004), would require maintenance of medically supplied nutrition and hydration in incapacitated persons in most instances.

H.701

 

February 21, 2005

The 2d DCA denies the Schindlers’ motion of February 15, 2005, clearing the way for removal of the PEG tube when the current stay expires on February 22, 2005. Judge Greer schedules a hearing on the Schindlers’ motion of February 18, 2005, for February 23, 2005.

 

February 22, 2005

Judge Greer stays removal of the PEG tube until 5 p.m. on February 23, 2005 (after he hears argument on the motion filed by the Schindlers on February 18, 2005).

 

February 23, 2005

After a hearing, Judge Greer extends the stay preventing removal of the PEG tube until 5 p.m. on February 25, 2005, to permit time to issue an order detailing his decisions regarding matters discussed at the hearing. Officials from Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) move to intervene in the case, but Judge Greer denies the motion to intervene at the hearing.

 

February 25, 2005

Judge Greer denies the motion before him and orders that, “absent a stay from the appellate courts, the guardian, Michael Schiavo, shall cause the removal of nutrition and hydration from the ward, Theresa Schiavo, at 1 p.m. on Friday, March 18, 2005.”

Order Denying Stay

 

February 26, 2005

The St. Petersburg Times reports that a Vatican cardinal spoke on Vatican Radio opposing removal of the PEG tube.

St. Petersburg Times article

 

February 28, 2005

The Schindlers file a number of motions with Judge Greer, addressing a range of issues. They also indicate that they will appeal the judge's decision of February 25, 2005. Judge Greer denies some of the motions but agreed to set a hearing date to consider others.

St. Petersburg Times article

 

March 7, 2005

The Schindlers appeal Judge Greer's February 25, 2005 order to the 2nd DCA.

Bioethicists from six Florida universities submit an analysis of H701.

Bioethicists' analysis

 

March 8, 2005

U.S. Rep. David Weldon (R.-Fla.) introduces in the United States House of Representatives H.R. 1151, titled the Incapactitated Persons' Legal Protection Act. The bill would permit a federal court to review the Schiavo matter through a habeas corpus lawsuit.

H.R. 1151

 

March 9, 2005

The Florida House Health Care Regulation Committee considers H.701, voting to approve a Council/Committee Substitute 701 instead of the original version.

Council/Committee Substitute 701

 

March 10, 2005

Judge Greer issues order denying Florida's Department of Children and Families the right to intervene in the guardianship case.

 

March 14, 2005

The Judiciary Committee in the Florida House considers H.701, voting to approve another Committee substitute for the original bill. The Sun-Sentinel reports that the House and the Senate have agreed that this bill will come to a vote.

Second Committee Substitute 701

 

March 15, 2005

The Florida House Health & Families Council considers and approves the second committee substitute H.701.

 

The Florida Senate Judiciary Committee passes S.804, providing that medically supplied nutrition and hydration cannot be “suspended from” a person in a PVS if: (1) the purpose of the suspension is “solely to end the life of” a person in a PVS; (2) a conflict exists on the issue of suspension of medically supplied nutrition and hydration among the persons who could be proxy decisionmakers for that person under Florida law; and (3) the person in the PVS had not executed a written advance directive or designated a health care surrogate.

Senate Bill 804

 

March 16, 2005

The 2d DCA affirms Judge Greer’s orders and refuses to stay the scheduled March 18 withdrawal of the PEG tube.

2d DCA Opinion

 

The U.S. House of Representatives, by voice vote, passes H.R. 1332, the Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005. This bill would amend federal law to provide for removal of certain cases to federal court from state court, rather than authorizing use of the federal habeas corpus remedy to obtain federal court review, as H.R. 1151 would have.

H.R. 1332

 

March 17, 2005

The Florida House of Representatives approves H.701, after some amendments.

House-Engrossed H.701

 

The Florida Senate votes down S.804.

 

Florida’s Department of Children and Families (DCF) petitions the Florida Supreme Court for relief, and the Florida Supreme Court denies the petition.

DCF All Writs Petition

Florida Supreme Court order

 

The U.S. Senate passes a “private bill” applying to the Schiavo case but differing from H.R. 1332. The U.S. Senate website, at http://www.senate.gov, explains a “private bill” as follows: “A private bill provides benefits to specified individuals (including corporate bodies). Individuals sometimes request relief through private legislation when administrative or legal remedies are exhausted. Many private bills deal with immigration–granting citizenship or permanent residency. Private bills may also be introduced for individuals who have claims again the government, veterans benefits claims, claims for military decorations, or taxation problems. The title of a private bill usually begins with the phrase, "For the relief of. . . ." If a private bill is passed in identical form by both houses of Congress and is signed by the President, it becomes a private law.”

U.S. Senate Bill 653 ES

Orlando Sentinel article

 

The Schindlers ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, but the U.S. Supreme Court denies their petition.

Schindlers’ Petition to U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Denial

 

March 18, 2005

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform issues five subpoenas: one commanding Michael Schiavo to appear before it and bring with him the “hydration and nutrition equipment” in working order; three commanding physicians and other personnel at the hospice to do the same; and one commanding Terri Schiavo to appear before it. The subpoenas would require that the PEG tube remain in working order until at least the date of testimony, March 25, 2005. The subpoenas are included as appendices to the U.S. House All Writs Petition (see just below).

 

The Committee on Government Reform also moves to intervene in the guardianship litigation before Judge Greer and asks Judge Greer to stay his order requiring removal of the PEG tube. Judge Greer denies the motions.

U.S. House Motion to Intervene

U.S. House Motion for Stay

 

 

 

The Committee on Government Reform files an emergency all-writs petition with the Florida Supreme Court, effectively seeking reversal of Judge Greer’s denial of its motions. The Florida Supreme Court denies this petition.

U.S. House All Writs Petition

 

The PEG tube is removed in mid-afternoon. This is the third time the tube has been removed in accordance with court orders.

 

The Schindlers, as “next friends” of their daughter, file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court in the Middle District of Florida. That court dismisses the case for lack of jurisdiction and refuses to issue a temporary restraining order because “there is not a substantial likelihood that [the Schindlers] will prevail on their federal constitutional claims.”

Schindlers' Habeas Corpus Petition

 

 

March 19-20, 2005

 

The U.S. Senate delays going its Easter recess and works on Saturday to reach a compromise with the House on a bill, S.686, closely resembling the special bill it passed on March 17. On Palm Sunday (which holiday is frequently noted in debate), it then passes S.686 and the U.S. House of Representatives returns from Easter recess for a special session to debate S.686.

U.S. Senate Compromise Bill S.686

 

 

March 21, 2005

 

Shortly past 12:30 a.m., the U.S. House of Representatives votes 203-58 to suspend its rules and pass S.686.

 

President Bush signs S.686 at 1:11 a.m.

 

Federal District Court Judge James D. Whittemore, Middle District of Florida (in Tampa), hears arguments on the Schindlers' motion that he order re-insertion of the PEG tube while the lawsuit they will assert pursuant to S.686 is litigated.

Motion for Injunction

Response to Motion for Injunction

Government's Statement of Interest

 

 

March 22, 2005

 

Federal District Court Judge Whittemore refuses to order re-insertion of the PEG tube.

Federal Court Order

[Guest VwDubber]

If it was, Michael Schiavo could just divorce Terry and move on. After all, he's already involved with somebody else. I think the issue is that Michael Schiavo honestly believes Terry would rather be dead than in her current state, based on some conversations he reports having with her before she coded in 1990.

Hey UWO,

 

You mention that Michael Schiavo could just divorce Terry and move on .. but how can he get a divorce since she is still alive yet unable to sign the divorce papers? I always thought that in order for someone to get a divorce .. that they were required to have their spouse's signature or that their spouse had to be deceased?

[Guest neypongwah]

VwDubber,

 

While you have justified posting this patient's CT scan by saying it is available for "educational purposes" from at a US school, I feel that it may be a little ethically suspect to help distribute them to the general public.

 

Shown to students at medical schools, this case may certainly be educational, but aren't medical students bound by certain measures to keep patient's files confidential? The problem with this case is that everybody who has a TV knows the identity and story of this patient. In fact the media (no doubt encouraged by the family) has put this case in the spotlight, and has helped it go all the way to Congress and GWB's bedroom. While I think that it is perfectly ethical to discuss this case on a forum visited by med students and med wanna-bes like you and I, posting information from her medical records is not right.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to attack you or anything. It's just that I feel that this cases and others like it can be debated and discussed quite effectively, while still maintaining the integrity of the patients at issue. Clearly, any Internet-savvy individual (such as yourself) can gain "legal" access to such documentation, but I believe that you should act a little more responsibly with this ability.

 

It's ironic that one of the key questions in this case is, what would the patient want, to continue living in her deminished condition or die? Let me follow this up by asking, do you think she would want her confidential medical records available to virtually anybody with Internet access?

[Guest UWOMED2005]

but how can he get a divorce since she is still alive yet unable to sign the divorce papers?

 

Yeah. . . hmm. . . that is a good point! I guess I hadn't thought of that one. . .

 

To me though, the issue in this has never been alleviating Michael Schiavo as his wife's caretaker. If it was, I'm sure he could just back off and let the parents take over her care. They seem quite willing.

 

Besides, now that she's in a rehabilitation facility, her care would not be THAT involved from a family standpoint. . . many families choose to remain extremely involved, but I've also seen families remove themselves fairly well in such situations.

 

So I feel fairly confident suggesting the issue for Michel Shiavo is not relief of burden, but following his wife's wishes.

[Guest VwDubber]

Yeah. . . hmm. . . that is a good point! I guess I hadn't thought of that one. . . To me though, the issue in this has never been alleviating Michael Schiavo as his wife's caretaker. If it was, I'm sure he could just back off and let the parents take over her care. They seem quite willing. Besides, now that she's in a rehabilitation facility, her care would not be THAT involved from a family standpoint. . . many families choose to remain extremely involved, but I've also seen families remove themselves fairly well in such situations. So I feel fairly confident suggesting the issue for Michel Shiavo is not relief of burden, but following his wife's wishes.

Hey UWO,

 

I wasn't trying to suggest that the relief of burden issue was overpowering the others. Just wanted to point out that the fact that her husband cannot get divorced is something that further complicates the case as he seems to have moved on.

 

Vdub-

[Guest VwDubber]

VwDubber, While you have justified posting this patient's CT scan by saying it is available for "educational purposes" from at a US school, I feel that it may be a little ethically suspect to help distribute them to the general public. Shown to students at medical schools, this case may certainly be educational, but aren't medical students bound by certain measures to keep patient's files confidential? The problem with this case is that everybody who has a TV knows the identity and story of this patient. In fact the media (no doubt encouraged by the family) has put this case in the spotlight, and has helped it go all the way to Congress and GWB's bedroom. While I think that it is perfectly ethical to discuss this case on a forum visited by med students and med wanna-bes like you and I, posting information from her medical records is not right.

Hi Neypongwah,

 

I understand your concerns and I do want to clarify a few of them. I obtained the CAT scan from a US school but it was not from a medical school. It actually came from a department of ethics website. This case has no doubt received a lot of attention and publicity lately as you mentioned.

 

Have you stopped to consider why you were offended that I posted her CAT scan? Afterall, I did post two CAT scans and yet you did not comment on the other one? Are your feelings influenced by the fact that this is a high profile case? What if I had posted both scans but not identified them?

 

If so, then would this make you feel "better"?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to attack you or anything. It's just that I feel that this cases and others like it can be debated and discussed quite effectively, while still maintaining the integrity of the patients at issue. Clearly, any Internet-savvy individual (such as yourself) can gain "legal" access to such documentation, but I believe that you should act a little more responsibly with this ability. It's ironic that one of the key questions in this case is, what would the patient want, to continue living in her deminished condition or die? Let me follow this up by asking, do you think she would want her confidential medical records available to virtually anybody with Internet access?

You said earlier that if it were shown to students at medical schools, this may certainly be educational. You seem to be more at ease with her records being shown to medical students for such purposes but please realize that on a fundamental level .. whether or not a medical student or a non-medical student sees this scan does not change the question which you've raised because the scan I posted is available for public access. I don't have an answer for you.

 

You're right that technically, anyone with internet access could gain access to this forum and see her scan but realistically, the visitors are going to represent a very small fraction of the population (health students, pre-health students etc).

 

Can you clarify for me what you mean by: "I believe that you should act a little more responsibly with this ability."

 

Thanks,

[Guest medeng]

In defence of VW, a quick google of "Terri Schiavo CT" and I found 4 other sites posting it, all with different "normal" brains... so obviously its coming from many different sources. Based on that I would say it was fair of VW to assume that it had been made publicly available.

 

I would guess that this was submitted as part of one of the zillions of court hearings, and hence is probably part of the public record...

[Guest neypongwah]

VW (and medeng),

 

I did not realize that the CT scans were so widely available. I was under the impression that you had to dig around for them using your Internet skills. I have visited your site so I know that you have skills, and I assumed you were using these special powers to obtain stats.

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for explaining. Sorry if I ruffled your feathers.

 

NPW

[Guest canmic]

The scans are definately part of public record, having been submitted as evidence in a trial.

 

Now, the judge COULD have ordered them to be sealed, as 'closed evidence' in keeping with privacy laws and medical record privacy, but he did not. I do not know why, but there may be a reason.

 

Something I'm wondering if anyone else has an issue with, the whole 7-14 days after withdrawl of food&water.

 

I checked with 3 doctors and they all said that they thought living 7 days without any hydration would be quite exceptional.

[Guest ploughboy]

Hey VW,

 

For the sake of good form, the source of the CTs and the timeline really ought to be cited. I'm not pointing this out because I have any issues with what you've posted, or with you as a poster, or because I have any intention of commenting further in this thread -- I simply tend to be picky about citations.

 

From the links I can see that Terri's CT comes from University of Miami, and the normal CT from Tufts. A quick check of Google showed that the timeline also came from the University of Miami , and that the authors...ahem...explicitly ask to be cited when their work is reproduced...

 

Quoting the above page...

 

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

 

KEY EVENTS IN THE CASE OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO

 

 

 

 

 

Kathy Cerminara, Nova Southeastern University, Shepard Broad Law Center

 

Kenneth Goodman, University of Miami Ethics Programs

With thanks to Steven Haidar, Dartmouth College

 

This content may be reproduced for non-commercial, education purposes only, with appropriate attribution to the source. (For more information, read our copyright policy.) Please send comments, suggestions and corrections to Ken Goodman, UM Ethics Programs, at ethics@miami.edu. News media and others seeking comment from Florida Bioethics Network leaders should call 305-243-5723.

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes I'm being a little A-R in pointing this out, but I'm not trying to be a jerk. Credit where credit is due, that's all...

 

Man, do I sound like a History TA!

 

Cheers,

 

pb

[Guest VwDubber]

no prob .. point well taken

 

ciao!

[Guest CalicoKal]

uwomed2005 mentioned awhile ago that he would post the wording for administering of opiates/sedatives to hasten death in certain cases. Reading the Canadian Critical Care Society's Position Paper on the Withdrawal of Life Support I found the following. It's not law, but it is a guideline and gives the wording we were looking for:

 

'In withholding or withdrawal of life support, the ICU team may use opiates and/or other sedatives recognized to relieve suffering. In achieving this goal, the medication(s) may accelerate or hasten the forthcoming death from the underlying disease. The Report of the Special Senate Committee on Euthansasia and Assisted Suicide (1995) recognizes "that the treatment aimed at alleviating suffering that may shorten life is legal." Under current Canadian law, euthanasia is not permissible. The same report defines euthanasia as "a deliberate act undertaken by one person with the intention of ending the life of another person to relieve that person's suffering, where the act is the cause of death." '

 

The paper can be found at the canadiancriticalcare.org

 

CK

[Guest canmic]

Anyone seen the south park episode about this mess?

 

I really liked the part where Kenny's living will said "And should I ever be in a persistant vegitative state, with my life being extended by the use of machines, please, for the love of god, whatever you do, do NOT show pictures of me in this state on national television".

 

Think about it, if you were her, would you want the entire world to know that you put yourself into a vegitative state because you had an eating disorder?

 

So much for whatever she might have wanted... oops, I guess both sides kinda forgot that it was supposed to be about what she wanted...