Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

This is a timeline from a neutral website:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

ROUGH TIMELINE AND DECISIONS

I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial decisions
that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point of view, are
Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions. The December 2003
guardian ad litem report to Governor Bush provides perhaps the most detailed
factual chronology available.

      December 1963. Terri's birth date
      November 1984. Terri & Michael marry
      February 1990. Terri suffers cardiac arrest and a severe loss of
oxygen to her brain
      May 1990. Terri leaves hospital and is brought to a rehabiliation
center for aggressive therapy
      July 1990. Terri is brought to the home where her husband and parents
live; after a few weeks, she is brought back to the rehabilitation center
      November 1990. Terri is taken to California for experimental therapies
      January 1991. Terri is returned to Florida and placed at a
rehabilitation center in Brandon
      July 1991. Terri is transfered to a skilled nursing facility where she
receives aggressive physical therapy and speech therapy
      May 1992. Michael and the Schindlers stop living together
      January 1993. Michael recovers $1 million settlement for medical
malpractice claim involving Terri's care; jury had ruled in Michael's favor
on allegations Terri's doctors failed to diagnose her bulimia, which led to
her heart failure; case settled while on appeal
      March 1994. Terri is transferred to a Largo nursing home
      May 1998. Michael files petition for court to determine whether
Terri's feeding tube should be removed; Michael takes position that Terri
would chose to remove the tube; Terri's parents take position that Terri
would chose not to remove the tube
      February 2000. Following trial, Judge Greer rules that clear and
convincing evidence shows Terri would chose not to receive life-prolonging
medical care under her current circumstances (i.e., that she would chose to
have the tube removed) [READ]
      April 2000. Terri is transferred to a Hospice facility
      January 2001. Second District Court of Appeal affirms the trial
court's decision regarding Terri's wishes [READ]
      April 23, 2001. Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second
District's decision [READ]
      April 23 or 24, 2001. Trial court orders feeding tube removed
      April 24, 2001. Terri's feeding tube is removed
      April 26, 2001. Terri's parents file motion asserting they have new
evidence regarding Terri's wishes
      April 26, 2001. Trial court denies Terri's parents' motion as untimely
      April 26, 2001. Terri's parents file new legal action against Michael
Schiavo and request that the removal of Terri's feeding tube be enjoined;
the case is randomly assigned to Judge Quesada
      April 26, 2001. Judge Quesada grants the temporary injunction, orders
Terri's feeding tube restored
      July 2001. Second District rules that Judge Greer erred in denying the
motion alleging new evidence and, in essence, orders the trial court to
consider whether new circumstances make enforcement of the original order
inequitable; Second District also reverses the temporary injunction and
orders dismissal of much of the new action filed before Judge Quesada [READ]
      (uncertain). Terri's parents detail their reasons why enforcement is
inequitable: (1) new witnesses have new information regarding Terri's
wishes, and (2) new medical treatment could sufficiently restore Terri's
cognitive functioning such that Terri would decide that, under those
circumstances, she would continue life-prolonging measures; Terri's parents
also move to disqualify Judge Greer
      (uncertain). Trial court denies both motions as insufficient
      October 2001. Second District affirms the denial of the motion to
disqualify and the motion regarding the new witnesses; the appellate court
reverses the order with regard to potential new medical treatments and
orders a trial on that question with doctors testifying for both sides and a
court-appointed independent doctor [READ]
      March 2002. Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second
District's decision [READ]
      October 2002. Judge Greer holds a trial on the new medical treatment
issue, hearing from doctors for both sides and a court-appointed independent
doctor; Terri's parents also assert that Terri is not in a persistent
vegetative state
     Schindlers file emergency motion for relief from judgment based on a
1991 bone scan report indicating Terri's body had previously been subjected
to trauma
      November 22, 2002. Following trial, Judge Greer denies Schindlers'
motion for relief (new medical evidence motion), rules that no new treatment
offers sufficient promise of improving Terri's cognitive functioning and
that Terri is, in fact, in a persistent vegetative state [READ]
      November 22, 2002. On this same day, Judge Greer denies Schindlers'
emergency motion related to the 1991 bone scan [READ]
      June 2003. Second District affirms the trial court's decision denying
Schindlers' motion for relief from judgment [READ]
      August 2003. Florida Supreme Court denies review of the Second
District's decision [READ]
      September 2003. Terri's parents file federal action challenging
Florida's laws on life-prolonging procedures as unconstitutional
      October 10, 2003. Federal court dismisses Schindlers' case
      October 15, 2003. Terri's feeding tube is disconnected
      October 20, 2003. Florida House passes a bill to permit the Governor
to issue a stay in cases like Terri's and restore her feeding tube
      October 21, 2003. Federal court rejects injunction request
      October 21, 2003. Florida House and Senate pass a bill known
informally as "Terri's Law" to permit the Governor to issue a stay in cases
like Terri's and restore her feeding tube [READ]; Governor signs the bill
into law and immediately orders a stay; Terri is briefly hospitalized while
her feeding tube is restored
      October 21, 2003. Michael brings suit against the Governor, asking to
enjoin the Governor's stay on grounds "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional;
Judge Baird rejects Michael's request for an immediate injunction, allowing
the tube to be restored, and requests briefs on the constitutional arguments
involving the new law
      November 7, 2003. Judge Baird rejects Governor's motion to dismiss
Michael's suit and have case litigated in Tallahassee
      November 20, 2003. Judge Baird rejects Governor's request for the
judge to recuse himself
      December 1, 2003. Guardian ad litem appointed under "Terri's Law" to
advise Governor submits report to Governor [READ]
      December 10, 2003. Second District rejects Governor's effort to have
Judge Baird disqualified
      April 2004. Second District affirms Judge Baird's decision denying
Governor's motion to dismiss and have case litigated in Tallahassee [READ]
      May 2004. Judge Baird declares "Terri's Law" unconstitutional on
numerous grounds [READ]
      June 2004. Second District certifies "Terri's Law" case directly to
the Florida Supreme Court
      July 2004. Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment based
on Pope John Paul II speech
      September 2004. Florida Supreme Court affirms Judge Baird's ruling
that "Terri's Law" is unconstitutional [READ]
      October 2004. Judge Greer denies Schindlers' most recent motion for
relief from judgment (motion based on Pope John Paul II speech) [READ]
      December 1, 2004. Governor asks U.S. Supreme Court to review Florida
Supreme Court's decision declaring "Terri's Law" unconstitutional
      December 29, 2004. Second District affirms (without written opinion)
Judge Greer's ruling denying Schindlers' most recent motion for relief from
judgment
      January 6, 2005. Schindlers file new motion for relief from judgment,
alleging Terri never had her own attorney, that the trial court
impermissibly applied the law retroactively, and that the original trial on
Terri's wishes violated separation of powers principles
      January 24, 2005. U.S. Supreme Court declines review in "Terri's Law"
case
      February 11, 2005. Judge Greer denies Schindlers' latest motion for
relief from judgment [READ]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> You are not listening. According to her husband, and according to the
> Florida courts. They heard arguments and weighed evidence from both
> sides.
>
> The husband was the one that took it to court. The lower court in Florida
> AGREED WITH THE HUSBAND, the judge thought the evidence presented was
> consistent with what the husband said, that Terri Schiavo would not want
> to continue tube feedings.
>
> If you have something to say about this court decision please do so. If
> you want to challenge my knowledge of the facts of this, please present
> evidence that what I said was wrong, do not attack me personally please.
>
> The lower court ruling was appealed by the family, the Florida appelate
> court upheld the lower court ruling.
>
> The family brought it to the lower court again. This time there was
> expert testimony on both sides, mostly regarding the issue of whether or
> not she was in a vegetative state, and whether there was any hope for her.
> Again, the lower court sided with the husband.
>
> I dont know if that decision was appealed, but there was an appeal to the
> US Supreme court that they decided not to hear.
>
> After Florida Govenor Jeb Bush passed a law last fall preventing her
> feeding tube removal, this decision was appealed to the Florida Supreme
> Court, and they decided that the law violated the Florida Constitution.
>
> My point is, the husband has put his evidence for what he thinks his wife
> would want under the scrutiny of the courts and they decided with him. I
> do not know what was presented. I do not know Mr Schiavo or her parents.
> I just know that the process of making decisions was followed correctly,
> and it is this process that I am defending, not the husband.
>
> Just because people do not like the decision does not mean it was wrong.
> It does not mean it is cruel. It does not mean it is unjustified. You
> have to admit the politicians in this case are motivated by the appeal
> this case has to conservatives, so they have a conflict of interest too
> dont they?
>
> All of the difficulty in this case is focused on the husband. But no one
> is addressing the underlying aspects of cases like this. This situation
> is in no way unique. You can argue against the husband all you want, but
> it is not a rational argument because you dont have all the facts. If you
> want to argue against the process, that would be a more fruitful argument.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
> To: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:27 PM
> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>
>
>> On Mar 18, 2005, at 7:21 PM, jack syme wrote:
>>
>>> Withdrawing her feeding tube, in accordance with her wishes and making
>>> her comfortable, IS caring for her.
>>
>> In accordance with her wishes, according to whom? Her husband? Don't make
>> me laugh. Please learn about the facts of this case, or don't bother
>> writing about it.
>>
>> Bill Dozier
>> Minister of Silly Guitar Sounds
>> ------
>> "...people should not be fooled into thinking that legalizing
>> physician-assisted suicide is the final step. It is merely the next
>> step" -- Jonathan V. Last
>>
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 22:29:04 2005