here're these, plus Shrub signing the terminate-against-patient's/guardian's desires:
**********QUOTE********
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=2270&ncid=2270&e=2&u=/krwashbureau/20050319/ts_krwashbureau/_bc_braindamagedwoman_guardian_wa....
Wolfson was appointed by a Florida court in the fall of 2003 to be Schiavo's guardian ad litem, or guardian at law, to deduce Schiavo's best interests and represent neither her husband nor her parents but Terri Schiavo herself.
This makes Wolfson
one of the very few people to have spent extended time with Schiavo and
gauged her level of awareness without having a vested interest at stake.
In the end, after long hours at Schiavo's bedside and after poring over 30,000 pages of legal documents,
Wolfson concluded that Schiavo was indeed in a permanent vegetative state. ....
But
Schiavo never made eye contact. When Wolfson visited her when her parents were there, she never made eye contact with them either, he said. And for all of Wolfson's pleadings and coaxing, he never got what he most wanted: a sign. ....
Wolfson was dismayed to learn Friday
that Barbara Weller, an attorney for the Schindlers,
claimed that Schiavo tried to speak. "Terri does not speak," he said. "To claim otherwise reduces her to a fiction." ....
http://floridahealthinfo.hsc.usf.edu/TheresaSchiavoFina... SCHIAVO's
parents admit they would not honor her wishes:
From page 14 the 38 page report commissioned by Jeb Bush:
Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive . . .
at any and all costs.
Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to
amputate each limb and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open-heart surgery.
Within the testimony, as part of the hypothetical presented, Schindler family members stated that
even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial,
the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state.
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.htmlShrub Signed 1999 Law Allowing Life Support Removal over Surrogate's Objections.... Both papers report that this is the first time in the United States a court has allowed
life-sustaining treatment to be withdrawn from a pediatric patient
over the objections of the child's parent. (The Dallas paper quotes John Paris, a bioethicist at Boston College, as its source.) If true, the
unique Texas statute under which this saga was played out contributed in no small way to the outcome. As one of the laws co-authors (along with a roomful of other drafters, in 1999) let me explain.
Under chapter 166 of the Texas Health and Safety Code, if an attending physician disagrees with a surrogate over a life-and-death treatment decision, there must be an ethics committee consultation (with notice to the surrogate and an opportunity to participate). In a futility case such as Sun Hudson's, in which the treatment team is seeking to stop treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial, if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient).
These provisions, which were added to Texas law in 1999, originally applied only to adult patients; in 2003; they were made applicable to disputes over treatment decisions for or on behalf of minors. (I hasten to add that one of the co-drafters in both 1999 and 2003 was the National Right to Life Committee. Witnesses who testified in support of the bill in 1999 included representatives of National Right to Life, Texas Right to Life, and the Hemlock Society. Our bill
passed both houses, unanimously, both years, and the 1999 law was signed by then Governor George W. Bush.)
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3073295March 8, 2005, 12:33AM
Hospitals can end life support
Decision hinges on
patient's ability to pay, prognosisA patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.
Dr. David Pate's comments came as the family of Spiro Nikolouzos fights to keep St. Luke's from turning off the ventilator and artificial feedings keeping the 68-year-old grandfather alive. ....
Law allows removal
State law allows doctors to remove patients from life support if the hospital's ethics committee agrees, but it requires that the hospital give families 10 days to find another facility.
A similar case is still in the courts. Texas Children's Hospital wants to discontinue life support on 5-month-old Sun Hudson, who was diagnosed shortly after birth with a fatal form of dwarfism. His mother, Wanda Hudson, wants her son's care to continue at the hospital. ....
***************UNQUOTE***********