Terri Schiavo case

===Oral feeding and the second guardianship challenge===
In March 2000, the Schindlers filed a motion to permit assisted feeding of Terri, which is not considered a life-prolonging procedure under Florida law. Since clinical records indicated that Terri Schiavo was not responsive to [[swallowing]] tests and required a feeding tube,<ref name="wolfson" /> Judge Greer ruled that she was not capable of orally ingesting sufficient nutrition and hydration to sustain life, and denied the request.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0300.pdf|title=In re: the guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated, File No. 90-2908GD-003|author=Greer, George W. Circuit Judge|publisher=Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit|date=March 7, 2000|access-date=February 9, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707075633/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0300.pdf|archive-date=July 7, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The Medical Examiner in his postmortem report was more definitive and reaffirmed that Schiavo could not have swallowed.<ref name="thogmartin">{{cite web|url=http://www.abstractappeal.com/schiavo/autopsyreport.pdf|title="Report of Autopsy" for Theresa Schiavo, Case #5050439|author=Thogmartin, Jon R.|page=34|publisher=co.pinellas.fl.us/forensics/|date=June 13, 2005|access-date=November 7, 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130618073323/http://www.abstractappeal.com/schiavo/autopsyreport.pdf|archive-date=June 18, 2013|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

In 2000, the Schindlers again challenged Michael Schiavo's guardianship. The Schindlers suggested that he was wasting the assets within the guardianship account by transferring Terri Schiavo to a [[Pinellas Park, Florida]], [[hospice care|hospice]] "after it was clear that she was not 'terminal' within Medicare guidelines" for hospices. By this time, while still legally married to Terri Schiavo, Michael Schiavo was in a relationship with Jodi Centonze, and had fathered their first child. He said he chose not to divorce his wife and relinquish guardianship because he wanted to ensure her final wishes (not to be kept alive in a PVS) were carried out. The court denied the motion to remove the guardian, allowing that the evidence was not sufficient and, in some instances, not relevant. It set April 24, 2001, as the date on which the tube was to be removed.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/petitiontoremoveguardian_amended.html|title=Second amended petition to remove guardian|author=Anderson, Patricia F.|publisher=libertytothecaptives.net|date=January 1, 2003|page=14|access-date=February 10, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060206190623/http://www.libertytothecaptives.net/petitiontoremoveguardian_amended.html|archive-date=February 6, 2006|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>