United States Supreme Court - Assignment Example

We all clearly remember the case concerning Terri Chiavo that took place back in 2005. The case was so high profile that it not only made national news, but it also made it into the United State’s Supreme Court. Michael Chiavo, Terri Chiavo’s husband, was highly insistent upon having Terri Chiavo’s feeding tube removed, which deprived her of all vital nutrients used to keep her alive. Michael Chiavo convinced the courts that his wife was in a vegetative state and that she did not wish to remain alive in this predicament, despite the lack of a medical directive stating that this was actually fact. In addition, there was evidence that disproved the claim that she was in a vegetative state. For instance, CNN stated that though the claim was made concerning her medical status, shocking evidence was brought forth by a handful of medical professionals, disproving the claim entirely. One would have thought that such evidence would have caused Judge Greer; the judge who made the ruling to remove Chiavo’s feeding tube, to retract his decision and allow the feeding tube to be reinserted. However, this was never the case. Judge Greer outwardly refused to even consider looking over the evidence, and he stood unswervingly by his decision (CNN News). As a result, Terri Chiavo’s parents were outraged. They were in utter disbelief that a judge could make such a ruling without fairly considering all of the evidence needed for affair case. Out of desperateness, Teri Chiavo’s parents contacted authorities on various levels within the United State’s government, most of which were on their side. They even pleaded with the United State’s Supreme Court to help; however, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. This left very few options for Teri Chiavo’s parents, and since time was running out, they had to hurry and do whatever possible to keep their daughter alive and keep her from suffering from the tragic fate of starving to death (CNN News). Chiavo’s parents had a very long and arduous battle to fight, and the road ahead of them was long; however, her parents never won the battle, and Terri Chiavo died. The issue at hand was that the parents of Terri Chiavo had to do whatever possible to be heard and get the feeding tube reinserted into their daughter, which would enable her to continue to receive her nutrients and stay alive. Upon Judge Greer’s refusal to look over the evidence that would state that Terri Chiavo’s condition was misdiagnosed, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case. As a result to all of the legal channels turning a deaf ear on Chiavo’s parents, they consulted with various political figures to aid them in their quest of fighting for their daughter’s right to life. It was the hope of Terri Chiavo’s parents that someone would hear them, and their daughter would be treated fairly and be allowed to live (CNN News). One political figure who played a major role in this case was Jeb Bush, the Governor of Florida. In an effort to help the parents of Terri Chiavo, he enacted a law that would assist her directly, as well s others who should find themselves in her state. This law promised better protection for Teri Chiavo and individuals like her, so the courts could not rule unfairly, and families would not have an easy road to go down when taking advantage of their incompetent family members. Unfortunately, this was not effective because when this matter was brought before the United States Supreme Court, Governor Jeb and his newly enacted law were challenged. Upon challenging this newly enacted law, the Supreme Court ruled that this law was unconstitutional because it infringed upon the separation of powers. It was stated that the Florida Governor acted in an unconstitutional fashion, being that he exercised power that he had no right to exercise (CNN News). There were a couple of laws that the United States Supreme Court used to make their ruling as it pertained to Terri Chiavo. One law that was used was Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution. This particular law states that the Legislature does not have any right to enact laws, nor does it have unrestricted power when it comes to enforcing or making application of the laws. The Supreme Court states that the Florida Governor violated this part of the Constitution, since he took it upon himself to enact a law in a hurried fashion without consulting or including other powers within the US government. This made the law invalid. The law that was then consulted for the final ruling is found in Laws of FLA: Section 765.101. This particular law dictates who is responsible for making the medical decisions of an incompetent individual, should a living will or medical directive not be present. According to this law, if a person is incompetent and cannot make medical decisions, then a proxy must decide. In this case, the proxy was Michael Chiavo, Terri Chiavo’s husband, and his decision was for the feeding tube to be removed and for Terri’s life to be discontinued. The court granted this decision, stating that because she could not speak for herself to counteract such a decision, she had no right to decide whether or not she should live or die (Florida Supreme Court). Further appeals from Terri Chiavo’s parents would not be heard, and Terri Chiavo just waited out her days until she took her last breaths. As far as my opinion is concerned on the issue of the ruling of Terri Chiavo’s right to life, I totally and one hundred percent disagree. It is one thing for an individual to be taken off life support, but to deprive an individual of food and drink is inhumane, to say the very least. One would not allow a dog to suffer this horribly. And being that a human is more superior to a dog, one would think that the courts would rule better and fairer treatment. Furthermore, just because one is incompetent and unable to make decisions does not constitute them less worthy of living than someone who is able. Life is precious, and even an incompetent person has a right to such a precious gift. Incompetent people, in my eyes, are like small children or little babies. One would not deprive a baby or small child a right to live because they cannot decide things for themselves. So, incompetent people should be afforded the same rights. When it came to the amount of judges ruling for this case, not all twelve participated, though, Terri Chiavo’s parents begged for this to happen. It was a two to one vote (CNN News). All the United States Supreme Court really did in this case was uphold the decision made by the circuit court in Florida. No further investigation was made. As far as whether or not I agree with the court’s decision, I disagree totally. One reason I disagree with the court’s decision is because they refused to consider all of the evidence presented to them. It seemed as though they had their mind set on Terri being in a permissive vegetative state, and nothing would sway them from believing this. It seems as though they only wanted to believe one thing and completely overlook the actual facts. It seemed as though denial was more comfortable for them. So much evidence refuted the fact that she was not in a permissive vegetative state. One article from Life News states that Terri’s parent’s attorney told Terri to say that she wanted to live, and everything would be over. The attorney stated that Terri tried desperately to repeat her words. All she could say was “I Want,” and that was all. The attorney described her pleas as almost yelling, and they were loud enough that police had to escort her from the room. Shortly thereafter, her feeding tube was removed (Ertelt). Sadly, her pleas were dismissed. Nobody even tried to hear them out. Another reason that I disagree with the decision of the court is that not all of the judges voted the matter, and several times, the Supreme Court refused to hear the matter. Teri was truly done wrong, and it is my hope that people learn from this case, and that others after her are treated better. Work Cited CNN News. "Schiavo parents appeal to U.S. Supreme Court." CNN News. N.p., 24 Mar. 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. . Ertelt, Steven. "Terri Schiavo Tried to Tell Parents Attorney She Wanted to Live." Life News. N.p., 18 Mar. 2005. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. . United States Supreme Court. "Opinion." Findlaw.com. N.p., 2004. Web. 17 Apr. 2010. . Read More