It's a pretty good rule of thumb, the one that says you can't always or even most of the time know how a judge may rule, based on his or her questioning. Sometimes, for example, when they seem to be most critical, they are just looking for you to provide additional support to buttress a conclusion they may already have reached in your favor
Then, again, there are instances when a judge's hostile predisposition is so obvious, there's not a lot of suspense. Such was the case with Circuit Judge W. Douglas Baird and "Terri's Law."
For newcomers, this was the legislation passed by the Florida Legislature October 21, 2003, empowering Gov. Jeb Bush to intervene in order to reinsert Terri Schindler Schiavo's feeding tube. The feeding tube that sustained Terri, left severely brain-injured in 1990, had been removed six days prior at her husband's insistence.
In a long and tangled legal maze that goes back years, Judge Baird is a late entry. But his unhappiness with Terri's Law was plain to see.
So, last week when Baird ruled the law unconstitutional, Terri's attorney, Pat Anderson, told the Miami Herald that she was "not surprised, but, of course disappointed." Gov. Bush's office immediately said it would appeal the decision to the 2nd District Court of Appeal, which had the crucial effect of ensuring that Terri is fed while the legal wrangling goes on.
The legal battle is now in its sixth year. According to the Associated Press, the case has "encompassed at least 20 judges in at least six different courts" and has drawn international attention. The primary bone[s] of contention are, what is her medical condition and what would Terri want done.
Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, contends that Terri is in a persistent vegetative state (PVS), and that, based on conversations with her prior to her collapse in 1990, would "not want to be kept alive with no hope of recovery," according to the Tampa Tribune. Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler vigorously deny she is in a PVS and "have testified [along with medical experts] she might respond well to experimental treatments" the Tribune reported. Along with other witnesses, the Schindlers flatly deny that Terri had said anything that would indicate she would not wish to be fed and hydrated.
In his scathing 23-page May 6 opinion, Baird said the law represented "unjustifiable state interference with the privacy right of every individual without any semblance of due process protection'' and improperly delegated legislative power to the governor, according to the Associated Press.
Ken Connor is the lead attorney for Gov. Bush. According to the Miami Herald, "Connor castigated Michael Schiavo and said that Gov. Bush deserved a chance to debate the facts of the case in a courtroom and to challenge the husband's motives in a courtroom."
He told the Herald, ''Make no mistake, the governor believes this is constitutional, the protection of the preservation of innocent life, the protection of the health care desires of the person who is at issue.'' Connor said. "The effect of this is to deprive the governor of his day in court. Michael Schiavo has run like a scalded dog from every effort to put him under oath.''
Although the case has been back and forth at many levels of the judiciary, Connor told the Herald "he expects the case will eventually be decided by the state Supreme Court and could even wind up in federal court if state judges continue to deny the governor's right to challenge Michael Schiavo's assertions that his wife wanted to die."
As lawyer Wesley Smith has observed, our culture "too often gives the benefit of the doubt to death in cases such as Terri's." What's needed is a presumption for life.
In Florida, Senate Bill 692 would create an explicit legal presumption in favor of providing tube-supplied food and fluids to cognitively disabled patients. This general rule would not apply for patients if it "would not contribute to sustaining the incompetent person's life or provide comfort to the incompetent person," or if the person explicitly rejected it in a written legal document known as an advance directive, or if there is clear and convincing evidence that the patient, while competent, gave express and informed consent rejecting it.
Terri's case is not only about one very vulnerable 40-year-old woman. It is a flashpoint in a much larger battle, one that we dare not lose.
posted by: newbie (reply)
post date: 05.27.04 (11:51 am)
If John Kerry wins this election then the terrorists will have won
It's a pretty good rule of thumb, the one that says you can't always or even most of the time know how a judge may rule, based on his or her questioning. Sometimes, for example, when they seem to be most critical, they are just looking for you to provide additional support to buttress a conclusion they may already have reached in your favor