blog.bioethics.net

Schiavo: A Constitutional law perspective

Kathy Cerminara, law professor at Nova Southeastern University, has been analyzing much of the legislation coming out on the Schiavo case; I look forward to hearing what she has to say about the Congressional legislation. Interesting enough, at least two "right to die" cases have been decided by the federal courts: Gray v. Romeo, 697 F. Supp. 580, ; 1988 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11580, where the court held upheld Marcia Gray's right to self-determination and her right to refuse medical treatment, as expressed through her husband, as surrogate and Tune v. Walter Reed Army Medical Hosp., 602 F. Supp. 1452, 1454 (D.D.C. 1985). In Tune, the court ordered, in accordance with the patient's wishes, the removal of her life-support system, although such an action would likely result in her immediate death. So, being in Federal Court certainly doesn't automatically equal a victory for the Schindlers. The federal district judge has three issues to decide initially: First, the request for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to reinstate the feeding tube; second, the constitutionality of the bill approved by Congress, and third, whether on not any of Terri Schiavos's constitutional rights have been violated. For the judge to grant a TRO, he has to weigh and balance four criteria: (1) an ascertainable claim for relief (that is, a right of the Plaintiff which is in need of protection), (2) a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim, (3) irreparable harm and damage which will occur if the TRO is not granted, and (4) No adequate remedy at law (that is, no way of calculating money damages). The Court may also balance the hardships to the parties if the TRO is granted, and at any public policy or public interest involved in the controversy. A hearing has been scheduled for 3pm today, we'll see what the federal judge does with this. -- Linda MacDonald Glenn