Terri Schiavo case

==Ethical and legal issues==
===Right to die===
The Schiavo case has been compared to the [[Karen Ann Quinlan|Karen Ann Quinlan case]] and [[Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health|Nancy Cruzan case]], two landmark right-to-die cases.<ref>{{cite book|last=Shepherd|first=Lois L.|title=If That Ever Happens to Me: Making Life and Death Decisions After Terri Schiavo|year=2009|publisher=Univ of North Carolina Press|pages=[https://archive.org/details/ifthateverhappen00shep/page/5 5]–6|url=https://archive.org/details/ifthateverhappen00shep|url-access=registration|isbn=978-0-8078-8864-3}}</ref><ref name="M Stonecipher">{{cite journal|last=Stonecipher|first=Matthew|title=The evolution of surrogates' right to terminate life-sustaining treatment|journal=Virtual Mentor|date=September 2006|volume=8|issue=9|pages=593–98|url=https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/evolution-surrogates-right-terminate-life-sustaining-treatment/2006-09 |access-date=July 5, 2021|doi=10.1001/virtualmentor.2006.8.9.hlaw1-0609|pmid=23234711|doi-access=free}}</ref> Quinlan entered a persistent vegetative state in 1975, and her family was allowed to remove her from a ventilator in 1976 after a ruling by the [[New Jersey Supreme Court]] based on her right of privacy. She died of [[pneumonia]] in 1985.<ref name="quinlan death">{{cite web|url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qwgjAAAAIBAJ&pg=4910,299074&dq=karen-ann-quinlan&hl=en|url-status=|title=Karen Ann Quinlan dies after 10 years in a coma|work=St. Petersburg (FL) Evening Independent|date=June 12, 1985}}{{deadlink|date=September 2023}}</ref> Cruzan was diagnosed with PVS in 1983 and her legal case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that "clear and convincing evidence" of her wishes to die under such circumstances was needed. Cruzan's family did not have enough evidence of that, but later produced more. She died after being removed from life support in 1990.<ref name="cruzan death">{{cite web|title=The Death of Nancy Cruzan|url=https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1014.html|work=Frontline, PBS|date=March 24, 1992|access-date=September 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160514022938/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/transcripts/1014.html|archive-date=May 14, 2016|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

The "Terri Schiavo case" actually refers to a series of cases. It differed from the Quinlan and Cruzan cases by involving settled law rather than breaking new legal ground on the right-to-die issue. In 2006, Professor Lois Shepherd, PhD JD, states it was "unclear" whether the Schiavo case represents a [[landmark decision]].<ref>{{cite journal |first=Lois |last=Shepherd |url=http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/shepherd.pdf |title=Terri Schiavo: Unsettling The Settled |journal=Loyola University Chicago Law Journal |year=2006 |volume=37 |page=297 |access-date=October 18, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502171024/http://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/shepherd.pdf |archive-date=May 2, 2016 |url-status=live |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The Terri Schiavo affair involved a dispute between family members and her legal guardian over her wishes when there is no documented desire.   According to medical ethicist Matthew Stonecipher, "The movement to challenge the decisions made for Terri Schiavo threatened to destabilize end-of-life law that had developed over the last quarter of the 20th century, principally through the cases of Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan."<ref name="M Stonecipher"/> The outcome of the Schiavo case was also in part determined by a 1990 Florida case, ''Guardianship of Estelle Browning''.<ref name="Browning Schiavo"/><ref name="Browning TBO">{{cite news|last=Sommer|first=David|title=Schiavo Case Could Cause Change In Law|url=http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA1IEYHYLD.html|access-date=November 30, 2012|newspaper=Tampa Bay Online|date=October 19, 2003 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20031023002811/http://news.tbo.com/news/MGA1IEYHYLD.html |archive-date=October 23, 2003 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In that case, attorney George Felos, representing a Browning relative,  successfully argued that Browning's feeding tube should be removed before the [[Florida Supreme Court]]. The elderly Browning had expressed, in a living will, her wish not to be kept alive by any artificial means, including receiving food and water "by a gastric tube or intravenously." At that time, it was common to remove people from ventilators, but the law in Florida was not clear on removing them from feeding tubes. In a landmark ruling, the Florida Supreme Court decided that Browning had "the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment, and that right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one's health."<ref name="Browning Schiavo"/>

===Disability rights===
During the years of legal proceedings, [[disability rights]] groups and activists closely monitored and involved themselves in the case. In March 2003, twelve disability rights groups, led by [[Not Dead Yet]], along with four other ''amici'' filed an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief in which they opposed the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube.<ref name="amicus brief">{{cite web|last=Townsend|first=Liz|title=Disability Rights Groups File Amicus Brief in Terri Schiavo Case''|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-98775346.html|publisher=National Right to Life News|access-date=November 20, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610055842/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-98775346.html|archive-date=June 10, 2014|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> They also used the Schiavo case to advocate for federal review in cases where third parties decide to withdraw life support from patients unable to give consent.<ref name="disability rights"/><ref name="Congress Debate">{{cite news|last=Stolberg|first=Sheryl Gay|title=Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28cong.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 28, 2005|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132316/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28cong.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0|archive-date=April 2, 2015|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
They argued that persistent vegetative state is frequently misdiagnosed, and that the reasons for withdrawal of life support from a patient should be scrutinized since even family member surrogates can have conflicts of interest. The Palm Sunday Compromise granted the federal review they sought, but it was limited to only the Schiavo case.<ref name="disability rights"/>