For those interested, here is the details:
Judge Won't Order Feeding Tube Reinsertion
By VICKIE CHACHERE, AP
Reuters
Terri Schiavo, shown here in 2001 with her mother, is in a persistent vegetative state, according to some doctors.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jump Below:
· Schiavo Timeline
· Quotes From the Debate
Talk About It: Post | Chat
TAMPA, Fla. (March 22) - A federal judge on Tuesday refused to order the reinsertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, denying an emergency request from the brain-damaged woman's parents.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Whittemore comes after feverish action by President Bush and Congress on legislation allowing her contentious case to be reviewed by federal courts. The judge said the 41-year-old woman's parents had not established a ''substantial likelihood of success'' at trial on the merits of their arguments.
Rex Sparklin, an attorney with the law firm representing Terri Schiavo's parents, said lawyers were immediately appealing to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta to ''save Terri's life.''
The 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 early Monday aimed at keeping her alive.
Schiavo did not have a living will. Her husband, Michael Schiavo, 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 her condition could improve.
The Schiavo Case
AP
Monday, 1:11AM: President Bush signs legislation that allows a federal court to hear the case.
Tuesday: Federal judge refuses to order reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMELINE
1990: Oxygen fails to reach Schiavo's brain, causing permanent damage. Husband Michael is named legal guardian.
1998: Husband petitions for the removal of wife's feeding tube.
Her Story: See Schiavo Timeline
Sources: AP, cnn.com
Using a law hurried through Congress and signed by President Bush outside his White House bedroom Monday, attorneys for Schiavo's parents argued that letting her die violates both her rights and her religion.
David Gibbs III, the parents' attorney, said that forcing Schiavo to starve would be "a mortal sin'' under her Roman Catholic beliefs and urged quick action: "Terri may die as I speak.''
But George Felos, an attorney for husband Michael Schiavo, argued that keeping the 41-year-old woman alive also violated her rights and noted that the case has been aired thoroughly in state courts.
"Yes, life is sacred,'' Felos said, contending that restarting artificial feedings would be against Schiavo's wishes. "So is liberty, particularly in this country.''
"Every possible issue has been raised and re-raised, litigated and re-litigated,'' Felos added. "It's the elongation of these proceedings that have violated Mrs. Schiavo's due process rights.''
The hearing Monday came three days after the feeding tube was removed.
The courtroom showdown followed an extraordinary political fight over the weekend. Congress passed a law that let Schiavo's parents argue their case before a federal court, bringing the intense legal battle to Whittemore's Tampa courtroom.
Terri Schiavo's father, Bob Schindler, who had been upbeat about the prospects of his daughter remaining alive, grimly left the courthouse as family friends crowded near him for support.
Early Tuesday, a handful of people lingered outside Terri Schiavo's hospice, talking softly. Tina Lawless, 65, a retired homemaker, sat along the row of TV camera stands set up by media outlets. "I'm hopeful, the judge seems reasonable,'' said Lawless, a supporter of Schiavo's parents.
Charged Debate
Longtime colleagues describe Whittemore, 52, as thoughtful, fair and down-to-earth, not the least flamboyant. "He will call it as he sees it. You could not ask for a better or fairer referee,'' said Tampa lawyer John Fitzgibbons.
Terri Schiavo's feeding tube was removed Friday, the third such time it has been disconnected. Both times previously the tube was re-inserted, once ordered by a judge, once by Gov. Jeb Bush on a special state law later thrown out by the courts.
Michael Schiavo contends he is carrying out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive artificially. He said he was outraged that lawmakers and the president were intervening in a private matter.
"There is no happy ending,'' Michael Schiavo said on CNN's "Larry King Live'' late Monday. "When Terri's wishes are carried out, it will be her wish. She will be at peace. She will be with the Lord.''
President Bush applauded the dramatic legislative maneuver by Congress to get the case before a federal court. "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,'' he said.
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.
Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a possible potassium imbalance brought on by an eating disorder. She can breathe on her own, but has relied on the feeding tube to keep her alive.
Court-appointed doctors say she is in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, while her parents insist she could recover with treatment. Doctors have said Schiavo could survive one to two weeks without the feeding tube.
Her brother, Bobby Schindler, went in to visit her late Monday.
"It's a surreal situation when you walk in there and you realize you're watching a loved one starve to death and dehydrate to death,'' he said. "Hopefully, something will happen to stop this.''
03-22-
I think it would take a miracle for Atlanta to overrule him. The problem with appeals IMHO is no NEW EVIDENCE is allowed in, they merely review the existing evidence for trial errors. Too bad, I would have liked to have seen an entirely new trial with latest tests and other evidence. jdn |
