Thursday, March 24, 2005

Without Comment or Recorded Dissent

Mar 24, 10:53 AM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a request from the parents of brain-damaged Florida woman Terri Schiavo for an emergency order allowing her feeding tube to be reinserted.
Without any comment or recorded dissent, the high court turned down the request from the parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, for an order preventing any further withholding of nutrition and hydration from their 41-year-old daughter.


The Supreme Court's action marked the fourth time since January that it has refused to intervene in the emotional right-to-die case, in which Christian activists have supported the parents against Terri Schiavo's husband and guardian, Michael Schiavo.

Attorneys for Michael Schiavo opposed the request filed by the parents and said they had offered "no valid justification for the extraordinary and invasive relief they seek."

They told the justices the Florida courts have far exceeded the constitutional requirements of due process under the law in protecting and promoting Terri Schiavo's rights.

"The status quo today is that Mrs. Schiavo is exactly where she would want to be: she has been released from unwanted, intrusive medical procedures according to her wishes. Preservation of the status quo would allow her to die in peace, and to maintain her dignity and autonomy," they said.

The parents had asked the Supreme Court for the emergency order while they seek to pursue their claims under special legislation adopted by the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress over the weekend and signed into law by President Bush that gave federal courts jurisdiction over the dispute.

The seven-year legal battle previously had been in the Florida judicial system, where a judge had ordered her feeding tube removed on Friday.

The parents made the request after a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta upheld a Florida federal judge's ruling and rejected the appeal by the parents because they failed to show a substantial case on the merits for any of their claims.

No comments: