- Pastors' work hours tallied in new survey
- Hope grows from Haiti’s ruins
- Haiti Day of Prayer video released
- Bobby Bowden in Tampa for Super Sunday
- Church compensation survey now online
- Philippians 3:2-15; 4:8: February 14- What will it take to change your mind?
- Mark 13:9-13, 21-27, 32-37: February 14 - Preparing for the future
- Lauren Dungy says children supportive of 'Coach,' but grateful for 'full-time dad'
- Michael Oher talks football, 'Blind Side'
- Pastor proud of Garçon's relief efforts
- Latest Stories...
RSS News Feed (What is it?)
 |
TALLAHASSEE (FBW)-The Florida Supreme Court voted 4-3 June 16 to hear the case regarding “Terri’s Law,” in which Gov. Bush, acting with the Legislature’s approval, ordered doctors to re-insert a hydration and nutrition tube last October for a disabled 40-year-old Clearwater woman.
 |
| Click on image for related coverage |
According to the Associated Press, the Supreme Court took the
case from the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Lakeland, which had
asked the high court to take up the matter.
At the center the case which has garnered international attention
in a “right-to-die” debate, is Terri Schiavo who
collapsed under mysterious circumstances in 1991. At that time
her brain was deprived of oxygen and she is in what some doctors
call a “persistent vegetative state.”
Terri’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler disagree with that diagnosis and have said that she has never received the rehabilitation doctors recommended.
Michael Schiavo, Terri’s estranged husband and legal guardian, has tried for nearly a decade to have her feeding tube removed so that she can “die with dignity.” He has insisted she would not want to be kept alive, although both her priest and her parents have said she would not wish to be euthanized.
Bush's attorneys have said the facts of the case are in dispute and therefore, it should not go to the Florida Supreme Court at this time. The Schindlers have filed at least twice to have Michael Schiavo removed as Terri’s legal guardian—and the matter is still pending in a lower court.
Michael Schiavo argues the law is unconstitutional because it violates his wife's right to privacy and the separation of powers between branches of government.
The state Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments on the case for Aug. 31.
You must be login before you can leave a comment. Click here to Register if you are a new user.