In re Guardianship of Terri Schiavo

quarterly-report.com

Political Commentary
by James R. Audet

	In re Guardianship of Terri Schiavo	Human Interest
	by James R. Audet	Home Page

March 29, 2005

There are few -- if any -- moral lessons to be gleaned from the family crisis in Clearwater, Florida that has pitted the parents of Terri Schiavo against her husband-guardian, Michael Schiavo.

From this tale of family dysfunction comes the usual suspect of money as a cleaving factor that has separated the parties into two ideologically polar opposites. ^1/

In a dispute involving money, the judiciary is often called upon to rule on the legal interests of the parties. In the Schiavo matter, what has become the issue of the case is Terri Schiavo's exact wishes regarding her constitutional protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment. The guiding U.S. Supreme Court case on this issue is Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

Terri Schiavo's right to refuse medical treatment is not in dispute as far as the Florida state courts and Federal courts have ruled. For a timeline and summary of judicial decisions in the Terri Schiavo case, as compiled by the University of Miami, click here.

On the other hand, there are some despicable actors in this tragedy that have exploited Terri Schiavo and fanned the flames of the family controversy.

1. The U.S. Congress, President George Bush and what is collectively known as the "religious right" have made a mockery of judicial trial and review. They have interfered in a uniquely family matter in order to advance their private political agendas.

2. Various doctors and nurses who have provided health care services to Terri Schiavo have given sensitive and private medical information to the news media. Their media interviews are in clear violation of The Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information "The Privacy Rule" issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). ^2/ Only the legally authorized representative of Terri Schiavo, in this case the husband-guardian, Michael Schiavo, can authorize health care practitioners to release Terri Schiavo's medical information.

3. The Fox News Channel has used its bully pulpit to broadcast erroneous and misleading information. In particular, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity have utterly ignored medical evidence and the findings of the courts to harass, intimidate and rebuke those individuals associated with Terri's Schiavo's wish to have her feeding tube removed.

Footnotes

1/ In his February 11, 2000 decision, Judge George W. Greer speaking for the Circuit Court of Pinellas County Florida said, " During the period of time following the incident of February 25, 1990 the parties worked together in an attempt to provide the best care possible for Terri Schiavo. On February 14, 1993, this amicable relationship between the parties severed. While testimony differs on what may or may not have been promised to whom and by whom, it is clear to this court that such severance was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his loss of consortium award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. The parties have literally not spoken since that date. Regrettably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential conflict of interest for both sides."

2/ The Privacy Rule was issued by HHS to implement provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).