Subscribe
to TIC!

Understanding How Terri Schiavo's Case Progressed in Court

Last month, America saw the Terri Schiavo case go from a small, family/State matter into a highly publicized Federal case. Many people followed each stage of the fight, whether for or against Terri's being allowed to die, but were confused about how each stage developed. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people". In other words, if the Constitution does not specifically state that it is it a Federal issue, then it is left to the States to mediate, govern, and make law accordingly that would pertain to their State only. However, because the fathers of the Constitution could not anticipate all future legal matters, many areas fall into a "grey area" and are therefore subject "to interpretation", as did the Terri Schiavo case.

In 1990, Terri Schiavo suffered a heart attack that caused a lack of oxygen to her brain, resulting in severe brain damage that left her in what many doctors described as a persistent vegetative state.

In this case, Congress had to decide whether this was a single, solitary case to be left to the State, or if the ruling in this case would pertain to others in the same position. Congress decided that because this addressed the “right to die” issue for many Americans across the country in a similar condition, unable to make decisions about their fate, the Federal government should step in to mediate. Because this was still a legal matter within the Schiavo/Schindler family, Congress approved a bill that would allow the issue to be heard in front of a Federal judge, where the ruling could be used as a precedent in similar cases across the country.

After Congress approved the bill, it was signed by President Bush to become law. The case was then approved to be passed from State to Federal Court in Tampa, FL, the district that Terri Schiavo’s hospice was in. The presiding judge in the case, Judge James Whittemore, was presented the case by the attorney’s for Michael Schiavo (Terri’s husband) and the Schindlers (Terri’s parents). The judge denied the Schindler’s request to reinsert the feeding tube, and ruled consistent with that of the majority of State courts; that Terri’s rights had been upheld.

The next step for the parents was to appeal to the 11th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals that represents Florida, Georgia and Alabama, and had the ability to overturn the lower Federal court ruling of Judge Whittemore. After hearing the case, they too denied the request to have Terri’s feeding tube reinserted, and upheld the lower court’s rulings that she had not been denied her constitutional rights of due process.

Due process rights under the 5th Amendment state that a citizen should be able to be heard and properly represented in court to defend ones actions or rights. After the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo, the Schindlers appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the nation to overturn the lower court ruling. Because the Supreme Court refused to hear the case without comment, the lower court ruling stood.

A safety feature that our fateful forefathers added to the Constitution in order to ensure that no single branch of government would grow too strong, was a system of Checks and Balances. The Schiavo case involved all three branches. The legislative branch of Congress wrote and passed the bill to escalate the case to the federal level, and President Bush representing the executive branch signed it into law, and then the judicial branch of the Federal courts had to determine if the bill passed by Congress was constitutionally legal, appropriate to the situation, and whether or not the State courts had allowed Terri’s both husband and parents to exercise their rights in the interest of Terri.

During this time, Congress subpoenaed Terri to appear in court, which would have required reinsertion of the feeding tube to ensure that Terri would be make the appearance. The Federal court ruled that this was an excessive use of authority by Congress, and that the sole point of subpoenaing her was to have the tube reinserted, and therefore was overruled by the courts. Eventually the courts decided that all matters were handled appropriately by both the lower courts and State courts, and there was no need to intervene further.

Another confusing issue in the Terri Schiavo case is determining when someone is in a “persistent vegetative state” versus being “minimally conscious”. A “persistent vegetative state” is defined when a person has lost all cognitive ability, or the ability to process any thought or emotion, and awareness of their environment, yet are physically awake. In a persistent vegetative state, the person’s abilities cannot improve and may deteriorate further over time. On the other hand, a “minimally conscious” state is defined as someone who may have serious brain damage, but on a minimal level is still aware of their surroundings, and has the ability to either improve or deteriorate.

The debate over which state Terri Schiavo was in stemmed from the fact that there are only very slight differences in the two states of conscious. In both, the person maintains patterns, sleeping and waking, may have basic communication ability (but are not evidently aware of their surroundings) and both states can maintain basic motor functions. Many people in a minimally conscious state can form an answer of some sort, whether it is with yes/no answers, blinking their eyes or making hand gestures.

In Terri Schiavo’s case, multiple doctors, including the court ordered doctors, had determined Terri was in a persistent vegetative state. However, some doctor’s hired by the Schindlers had concluded that Terri was instead actually in a minimally conscious state. The majority consensus, however, was that Terri could not communicate or give any sort of answer, nor was she aware of her surroundings.

While this case pulled on the heartstrings of many Americans, and most have probably formed an opinion, in the end the courts ruled in favor of Michael Schiavo, Terri’s husband, as he was her legal guardian. Because Terri never had a living will stating what she wanted if she was incapacitated, unable to decide for herself, both Michael and her parents, the Schindlers, fought exhaustively against each other in a heated court battle, all the way to the Supreme Court for what they whole-heartedly thought Terri would have wanted and what would have been best for her.

What is the FBA?  |  FBA Website Prototype  |  Cost Estimates  |  The Team

Publishers of The Informed Constituent.

Contact the FBA