Theresa Schiavo Case Study

Procedural History The husband of Theresa Schiavo, Michael Schiavo petitioned to court to allow the end of life-prolonging procedures for his paralyzed wife Theresa. His wish was granted but the parent’s of Theresa were very upset with this decision. After a trial, Michael and Theresa’s parents both presented evidence to the court. The leaders of the court found clear evidence that Theresa would want to end life-prolonging procedures herself, if she were capable of making her own decision. The decision to terminate the life-prolonging actions was final but the parents of Theresa fought against the final order. The trial court determined that the custody court’s decision was deemed untimely. The second district of courts also filed for a hearing
The Legal Issue Does Theresa’s court case violate the separation of powers clause of Florida’s state constitution?
Facts of the Case Theresa Schiavo lived in a state of paralysis for over ten years because of a heart attack that she had on February 25, 1990. Since her heart attack, she had been living in a nursing home under constant care and supervision. She was kept alive with the help of feeding tubes, which gave her food and water, allowing her to stay alive. After about eight years living in the nursing care facility, her husband, Michael Schiavo requested to the court to allow the end of life-prolonging methods. The court allowed his request and the tube that gave his wife food and water to prolong her life was removed. Despite this decision, Theresa’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, filed an action that challenged the decision of the trial court. This led to a long and bitter lawsuit battle between Michael and Theresa’s parents. Ultimately, the appellate court determined that the original order, which allowed the removal of Theresa’s food and water tube was final and that it
The decision was final and the legislature’s attempt to alter that final settlement was unconstitutionally practical to Theresa Schiavo. The governor's executive order effectively reversed a properly decreed final judgment and was seen as an unconstitutional violation on the power reserved for the judiciary court. Furthermore, it inappropriately allowed legislative power to the governor.he legislation did not provide an additional level of due process protection to those who were unable to communicate their wishes regarding end-of-life decisions. The law did not even require the governor to consider a patient's wishes, but instead allowed a one-sided decision by the governor to allow the withholding of life-prolonging procedures to the