Terri Schiavo case

==Legal cases 1992–2005==

===Malpractice===
In 1992, Michael filed a [[malpractice]] suit against Terri's [[gynecologist]] on the basis that he failed to diagnose [[bulimia nervosa|bulimia]] as the cause of her infertility.<ref>Greer, George W., Circuit Judge. [http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf "In re: The Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated", (PDF)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707075544/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf |date=July 7, 2011 }} File No. 90-2908GD-003, ''[http://jud6.org/ Fla. 6th Judicial Circuit] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110926072401/http://www.jud6.org/ |date=September 26, 2011 }}'', February 11, 2000</ref> Terri had gone to the doctor because she had stopped [[Menstruation|menstruating]] but the doctor had failed to take her medical history into account which might have revealed an eating disorder. During the case, one of Terri's friends testified that she knew Schiavo was bulimic. In November 1992, Michael won the case and was awarded $6.8 million by the jury, later reduced to $2 million as Terri was found partly at fault for her condition.<ref name="UStoday"/> After attorneys' fees and other expenses, Michael received $300,000 and $750,000 was put in a trust fund for Terri's medical care. According to Michael, in early 2003 the Schindlers demanded that he share the malpractice money with them.<ref name=abstract />

===Petition to remove feeding tube===
On June 18, 1990, the court appointed Michael Schiavo as Terri Schiavo's legal guardian; this appointment was not disputed by the Schindlers at the time.<ref name="wolfson" /> In May 1998, Michael Schiavo filed a petition to remove Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, which her parents opposed. Richard Pearse was appointed by the court as a second [[guardian ad litem|guardian ''ad litem'' (GAL)]], and on December 29, 1998, reported "Dr. Jeffrey Karp's opinion of the [[Ward (law)|ward]]'s condition and prognosis is substantially shared among those physicians who have recently been involved in her treatment." Pearse concluded from Karp's and Vincent Gambone's diagnosis of ''Persistent Vegetative State'' that Schiavo was legally in a persistent vegetative state as defined by Florida Statutes, Title XLIV, Chapter 765, [[§]]101(12). This includes the "absence of voluntary action" and an "inability to communicate or interact purposefully".<ref name="pearse">{{cite web|url=http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf|title=Report of guardian ad litem", for "In re: the guardianship of Theresa Schiavo, an incapacitated person, Case No. 90-2908GD-003|author=Pearse, Richard L. Jr. P.A. Guardian Ad Litem.|pages=2, 8–11|publisher=Hospice Patients Alliance|date=December 29, 1998|access-date=February 1, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060211023027/http://www.hospicepatients.org/richard-pearse-jr-12-29-98-report-of-guardianadlitem-re-terri-schiavo.pdf|archive-date=February 11, 2006|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/765.101|title=State of Florida. Florida Statutes, Citation of Law, §765.101(12), Florida Statutes|publisher=[[State of Florida]]|date=June 1, 2005|access-date=February 3, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130517122147/http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2012/765.101|archive-date=May 17, 2013|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

Pearse found that there was no possibility of improvement but that Michael Schiavo's decisions might have been influenced by the potential to inherit what remained of Terri Schiavo's estate as long as he remained married to her. Due to a lack of a [[living will]] and questions regarding Michael's credibility, Pearse recommended denying his petition to remove her feeding tube. Pearse reported that the issue of conflict of interest applied to the Schindlers as well since, had Michael divorced Terri as they wanted him to, they would have inherited the remainder of Terri Schiavo's estate upon her death.<ref name="pearse" />

===Schiavo end-of-life wishes===
Given the lack of a [[living will]], a trial was held before Pinellas County Judge [[George Greer]] during the week of January 24, 2000, to determine what Terri Schiavo's wishes would have been regarding life-prolonging procedures.<ref name="greer-02-00"/> Michael Schiavo was represented by attorney [[George Felos]], who had won a landmark right-to-die case before the [[Florida Supreme Court]] in 1990.<ref name="Browning AP">{{cite news|title=Florida Woman Dies Attached to a Tube; Legal Fight Goes On|work=The New York Times |url=https://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/florida-woman-dies-attached-to-a-tube-legal-fight-goes-on.html|agency=Associated Press|date=July 19, 1989|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170312202203/http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/19/us/florida-woman-dies-attached-to-a-tube-legal-fight-goes-on.html|archive-date=March 12, 2017|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref name="Browning Schiavo">{{cite web|last=Levesque|first=William R.|title=Right-to-die law defined by local case|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/13/Tampabay/Right_to_die_law_defi.shtml|work=St. Petersburg Times|date=October 13, 2003|access-date=November 23, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131203001552/http://www.sptimes.com/2003/10/13/Tampabay/Right_to_die_law_defi.shtml|archive-date=December 3, 2013|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

The trial included testimony from eighteen witnesses regarding her medical condition and her end-of-life wishes. Michael Schiavo claimed that his wife would not want to be kept on a machine where her chance for recovery was minuscule. According to Abstract Appeal Trial Order, her parents "claimed that Terri was a devout [[Roman Catholic]] who would not wish to violate the Church's teachings on [[euthanasia]] by [[Patient refusal of nutrition and hydration|refusing nutrition and hydration]]." Judge Greer issued his order granting the petition for authorization to discontinue artificial life support for Terri Schiavo in February 2000. In this decision, the court found that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state and that she had made reliable oral declarations that she would have wanted the feeding tube removed.<ref name="greer-02-00">{{cite web|url=http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf|title=In re: the guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated", File No. 90-2908GD-003|author=Greer, George W. Circuit Judge|pages=9–10|publisher=Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit|date=February 11, 2000|access-date=January 8, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707075544/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder02-00.pdf|archive-date=July 7, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> This decision was upheld by the [[Florida Second District Court of Appeal]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt|title=In re Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellants, v. Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellee, Case Number: 2D00-1269|author=Altenbernd, Chris W. (for The Court)|publisher=Florida Second District Court of Appeal|date=January 24, 2001|access-date=February 6, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110707075621/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt|archive-date=July 7, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> (2nd DCA) and came to be known by the court as ''Schiavo I'' in its later rulings.<ref>See, for instance p. 6 of [http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf US District Court Case No. 8:05-CV-530-T-27TBM (PDF)] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060213190403/http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf |date=February 13, 2006 }} p. 6</ref>

===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>

===''Schiavo II''===
In April 2001, the Schindlers filed a motion for relief from judgment citing new evidence of Terri Schiavo's wishes. Judge Greer denied the motion as untimely under Rule 1.540(b)(5) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://floridacivpro.com/rules/1-540-relief-from-judgment-decrees-or-orders/|title=Florida Rules of Civil Procedure|publisher=The Florida Bar|date=December 1, 2005|access-date=November 22, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121031140659/http://floridacivpro.com/rules/1-540-relief-from-judgment-decrees-or-orders/|archive-date=October 31, 2012|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> The Second District Court of Appeal upheld Greer's decision but [[Remand (court procedure)|remanded]] the issue in order to give the Schindlers an opportunity to file a new motion. On April 24, 2001, Terri's feeding tube was removed for the first time. The Schindlers filed a civil suit against Michael Schiavo alleging [[perjury]], which was assigned to another court. The judge, Frank Quesada, issued an injunction against the removal of feeding tube until this was settled. The feeding tube was reinserted on April 26, 2001. On appeal by Michael Schiavo, the Second District Court of Appeal reversed Judge Quesada's order. In the same time frame, Michael Schiavo filed a motion to enforce the mandate of the guardianship court (that the feeding tube be removed). The Second District Court of Appeal denied the motion. These three decisions, all published in a single order by Florida's Second District Court of Appeal,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder07-01.txt|title="In re Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellants, v. Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellee", ''and'' "Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellant, v. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellees", Case Numbers: 2D00-1269, 2D01-1836, and 2D01-1891|author=Altenbernd, Chris W. Judge (for The Court)|publisher=Florida Second District Court of Appeal|date=July 11, 2001|access-date=February 11, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709123352/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder07-01.txt|archive-date=July 9, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> came to be known by the court as ''Schiavo II'' in its later rulings.

===''Schiavo III and IV'': PVS diagnosis challenge===
[[File:schiavo catscan.jpg|frame|right|Left: [[CT scan]] of normal brain; Right: Schiavo's 2002 CT scan provided by [[Ronald Cranford]], showing loss of brain tissue. The black area is liquid, indicating [[hydrocephalus|hydrocephalus ex vacuo]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/511647|title=In Brief: The Afterlife of Terri Schiavo|last=Fins|first=Joseph|author2=Nicholas Schiff|journal=The Hastings Center Report|publisher=The Hastings Center|volume=35|issue=4|page=8|date=September 1, 2005|access-date=October 1, 2005|doi=10.1353/hcr.2005.0038|pmid=16225295|s2cid=44800298|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121211012736/http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/511647|archive-date=December 11, 2012|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} Quote: "She had developed hydrocephalus ex vacuo, a condition marked by enlarged ventricles filled with cerebrospinal fluid, because of this profound loss of cortical volume."</ref> The small white piece in the right image is the [[thalamic stimulator]] implanted in her brain.]]
On August 10, 2001, on remand from the [[Florida Second District Court of Appeal]], Judge Greer heard a motion from the Schindlers claiming that new medical treatment could restore sufficient cognitive ability such that Terri Schiavo herself would be able to decide to continue life-prolonging measures. The court also heard motions from the Schindlers to remove the guardian (Michael Schiavo) and to require Judge Greer to [[recuse]] himself. Judge Greer denied the motions and the Schindlers appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals. On October 17, 2001, the Court of Appeal affirmed the denials of the motions to remove and recuse. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that their opinion misled the trial court, and they remanded the question of Terri Schiavo's wishes back to the trial court and required an evidentiary hearing to be held. The court specified that five board certified neurologists were to testify. The Schindlers were allowed to choose two doctors to present findings at an evidentiary hearing while  Schiavo could introduce two rebuttal experts. Finally, the trial court itself would appoint a new independent physician to examine and evaluate Terri Schiavo's condition. These decisions, all published in a single order by the Florida Second District Court of Appeal,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.2dca.org/opinion/October%2017,%202001/2d01-3626.pdf|title=In re: Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellants, v. Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellee, Case Number: 2D01-3626|author=Altenbernd, Chris W. Judge (for The Court)|publisher=Florida Second District Court of Appeal|date=October 17, 2001|page=12|access-date=February 22, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060311110308/http://www.2dca.org/opinion/October%2017,%202001/2d01-3626.pdf|archive-date=March 11, 2006|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> came to be known by the court as ''Schiavo III'' in its later rulings. In October 2002, on [[remand (court procedure)|remand]] by the Second District Court of Appeal, an evidentiary hearing was held in Judge Greer's court to determine whether new therapy treatments could help Terri Schiavo restore any cognitive function. In preparation for the trial, a new [[computed axial tomography]] scan (CAT scan) was performed, which showed severe [[cerebral atrophy]]. An [[Electroencephalography|EEG]] showed no measurable brain activity. The five physicians chosen were William Maxfield, a [[radiology|radiologist]], and four [[neurology|neurologists]]: William Hammesfahr, Ronald Cranford, Melvin Greer and Peter Bambakidis.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/10/Tampabay/Schiavo_tapes__snippe.shtml|title=Schiavo tapes: snippets, then not much|last=Nohlgren|first=Stephen|work=St. Petersburg Times|date=November 10, 2003|access-date=April 5, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080111053415/http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/10/Tampabay/Schiavo_tapes__snippe.shtml|archive-date=January 11, 2008|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>

The five doctors examined Terri Schiavo's medical records, brain scans, the videos, and Terri herself. Cranford, Greer, and Bambakidis testified that Terri Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). Drs. Maxfield and Hammesfahr testified that she was in a [[minimally conscious state]]. As part of the court-ordered medical exam, six hours of video of Terri Schiavo were taped and filed at the Pinellas County courthouse. The tape included Terri Schiavo with her mother and neurologist William Hammesfahr. The entire tape was viewed by Judge Greer, who wrote, Terri "clearly does not consistently respond to her mother". From that six hours of video, the Schindlers and their supporters produced six video clips intended to support their case, totaling less than six minutes, and released those clips to public websites.<ref name="tbo">{{cite news|url=http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBQ67CTI6E.html|title=Schiavo Videotapes Offer Powerful But Misleading Evidence|last=Smith|first=Brad|work=Tampa Tribune|date=March 20, 2005|access-date=February 17, 2006 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050320120815/http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBQ67CTI6E.html |archive-date=March 20, 2005 |url-status=dead}}</ref> Judge Greer ruled that Terri Schiavo was in a PVS, and was beyond hope of significant improvement. The trial court order was particularly critical of Hammesfahr's testimony, which claimed positive results in similar cases by use of [[vasodilation]] therapy, the success of which is unsupported in the medical literature.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt|title=In re: The guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated. Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Petitioner, v. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Respondents, File No. 90-2908-GB-003|author=Greer, George W. Circuit Judge|publisher=Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit|date=November 22, 2002|access-date=February 4, 2006|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110709123342/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder11-02.txt|archive-date=July 9, 2011|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> This ruling was later affirmed by Florida's Second District Court of Appeal, which stated that "this court has closely examined all of the evidence in the record", and "we have&nbsp;... carefully observed the video tapes in their entirety." The court concluded that "if we were called upon to review the guardianship court's decision ''[[Trial de novo|de novo]]'', we would still affirm it." This decision by the Second District Court of Appeals<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2006,%202003/2D02-5394.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040726042921/http://www.2dca.org/opinion/June%2006,%202003/2D02-5394.pdf|url-status=dead|archive-date=July 26, 2004|title="In re: Guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Appellants, v. Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Appellee", Case Number: 2D02-5394|author=Altenbernd, Chris W. Judge (for The Court)|publisher=Florida Second District Court of Appeal|date=June 6, 2003|pages=9–10|access-date=February 22, 2006|df=mdy-all}}</ref> came to be known as ''Schiavo IV'' in later rulings.

Around the start of 2003, the Schindlers began to create more publicity by lobbying for their case to keep their daughter alive.  On September 11, 2003, the Schindlers petitioned the court to forestall removal of the feeding tube in order to provide for "eight weeks' therapy". Accompanying the petition were four affidavits from members of the Schindler family and one from Dr. Alexander T. Gimon. At the hearing, the Schindlers' counsel read into the record additional affidavits from three speech professionals and two nurses. In particular, nurse Carla Sauer Iyer asserted that she was able to feed Terri Schiavo orally but that Michael characterized any such interaction as "therapy" and ordered her not to do so. Iyer claimed in her affidavit that her initial training in 1996 consisted solely of the instruction, "Do what Michael Schiavo tells you or you're terminated", and that standing orders were not to contact the Schindler family, but that she "would call them anyway".<ref name=":0" />

On September 17, 2003, Judge [[George Greer]] denied the petition, and wrote that "the Petition is an attempt by Mr. and Mrs. Schindler to re-litigate the entire case. It is not even a veiled or disguised attempt. The exhibits relied upon by them, clearly demonstrate this to be true." Regarding Iyer's<ref name=Iyer>{{cite web|url=http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/03/carla_sauer_i_w.html|title=Fox interview of Carla Sauer Iyer|publisher=Fox News via American Patriot Friends Network (APFN)|date=March 25, 2005|access-date=July 25, 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050326040947/http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/03/carla_sauer_i_w.html |archive-date=March 26, 2005 |url-status=dead}}</ref> statements,<ref name=":0">{{cite web|url=http://www.apfn.org/Schiavo/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm|title=Affidavit|date=March 2, 2005|author=Carla Sauer Iyer|access-date=July 25, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927202855/http://www.apfn.org/Schiavo/CIyerAffidavit090203.htm|archive-date=September 27, 2007|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/news/news/article_456712.php|title=Michael Schiavo's character is mixed portrait|last=Breed|first=Allen G.|publisher=Orange County Register|date=March 25, 2005|access-date=March 1, 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090706204126/http://www.ocregister.com/ocr/sections/news/news/article_456712.php |archive-date=July 6, 2009 |url-status=dead}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hospicepatients.org/heidi-law-09-03-affidavit-re-terri-schiavo-michael.html|title=Heidi Law Affidavit|author=Heidi Law|publisher=self|date=January 1, 2002|access-date=January 1, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061027174433/http://www.hospicepatients.org/heidi-law-09-03-affidavit-re-terri-schiavo-michael.html|archive-date=October 27, 2006|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref> Greer wrote that they were "incredible to say the least" and that "Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up from April 1995 through July 1996, which include the staff of Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the guardian ''ad litem'', the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler&nbsp;... It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had Iyer contacted them in 1996 as her affidavit alleges."<ref>{{cite book|url=http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf|title=In re: The guardianship of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Incapacitated. Michael Schiavo, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Petitioner, v. Robert Schindler and Mary Schindler, Respondents, File No. 90-2908GD-003|author=Greer, George W. Circuit Judge|publisher=Florida Sixth Judicial Circuit|date=September 17, 2003|access-date=July 25, 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070710115626/http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/trialctorder0903.pdf|archive-date=July 10, 2007|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}} Direct quote from pages 5–6 of this 9-page Order.</ref>