Chapter 10 Questions raised by Teri's death

Watching Shakespeare plays when I was a child, I couldn't understand Hamlet's pain: "To be or not to be, that is the question"—what kind of question is this?Didn't they say that it's better to live than to die?As I grew up, I realized that when people face the dilemma of whether to live or die and cannot find an answer, it is a real tragedy. During the two weeks in the middle and late March of 2005, the U.S. ruling and opposition parties split into two camps over a woman's life-and-death dilemma.The woman's name was Terri Schiavo. 1. Fifteen years between life and death

In the spring of 1990, 26-year-old Terry suffered permanent damage to her brain due to a potassium imbalance that caused her heart to stop beating and lack of oxygen.Teri lost the ability to swallow and lost consciousness. She must be kept alive with a feeding tube.The court appointed her husband, Mike Schiavo, as her legal guardian under Florida law. In 1992, a state court jury found that it was a medical malpractice and awarded $1 million in damages, of which $700,000 was earmarked for Teri's care. Teri's parents, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler, used to get along very well with their daughter and son-in-law.The older couple moved from northern Pennsylvania to live in southern Florida, and the younger couple followed suit.After Terry was disabled, the Schindlers took their daughter home at first, and their son-in-law Mike also moved in to take care of Terry.Later they sent Teri to a specialized nursing hospital, and the Schindlers applied to change Teri's guardian without success.

In 1998, Mike filed with the court for an order to remove Teri's feeding tube because Teri was in a "persistent vegetative state".He said that Teri herself was unwilling to live in such a senseless, unconscious life.He said Teri had said something like this when he and she attended a funeral together.Therefore, he insisted that it was Teri's own wish to remove the feeding tube and die.However, Teri's parents, the Schindler couple, firmly opposed it. They pinned their hopes on the miracle of medicine.Terry's husband and parents have since started a seven-year judicial lawsuit for Terry's life and death.

In 2000, Florida Judge Greer ruled that under Florida law, Teri's feeding tube could be removed.The basis for this decision is that Florida law allows the withdrawal of medication and nutrition for patients in a "persistent vegetative state" with no possibility of recovery, as long as the patient does not leave a dissenting will or applies on behalf of the patient's guardian. On April 24, 2001, Terry's nutrition tube was removed for the first time. The Schindlers immediately appealed. Two days later, the state appeals court ordered that the case should be retried. During the retrial, the nutrition tube was still used to maintain Terry's life. .

In 2002, the state appeals court heard the case.Three doctors, two appointed by her husband Mike and one appointed by the court, testified in court that Teri was in a "persistent vegetative state" with no hope of recovery.But two doctors appointed by her parents testified that Terry's recovery was still possible.Judge Terrell once again ruled that Taili's nutrition tube could be removed, but this time it was not executed immediately, and Taili's parents had time to appeal. As a result, Terri's parents lost their appeal in the state appeals court, which upheld Judge Terrell's original sentence. On October 15, 2003, Judge Terrell ordered the removal of Teri's feeding tube for the second time.At this time, the matter has alarmed

Florida's Legislative Assembly.The state legislature passed an emergency bill authorizing Gov. Jeb Bush to block enforcement of the court's decision.The governor of Florida is the younger brother of President Bush.This act is known as the "Telly Act".Two hours after the bill passed, Governor Jeb ordered Teri's feeding tube to be reconnected.This time, Teri's feeding tube stopped for six days, but Teri was still alive. On September 23, 2004, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Telly Act had inappropriately interfered with the powers of judicial decisions. As the executive head, the governor had no right to block court orders. Therefore, this law was unconstitutional. invalid.The governor then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court.

On January 24, 2005, the Federal Supreme Court rejected the Florida Governor's appeal.State Judge Greer then determined that Teri's feeding tube could be removed on March 18. On February 28, Teri's parents proposed to Judge Greer that their daughter Teri and her husband Mike divorce and re-appoint a guardian.Greer dismissed the application.Teri's parents appealed. On March 16, the Florida Court of Appeals rejected the appeal of Teri's parents. March 18 has arrived.Teri's parents and their supporters moved their petition to Washington, D.C., the federal capital, to appeal to members of Congress.The entire case took place in Florida, and it was a state judicial procedure under the framework of state law. According to the US federal system and the principle of separation of powers, members of Congress were beyond their reach.But once the feeding tube was removed, Taili could only survive for one to two weeks.A House of Representatives committee within their purview subpoenaed Teri and her husband to testify at the hearing as a way to temporarily block the extubation.State Judge Greer ordered a stay of the subpoena, arguing that Congress does not have the power to interfere with state court orders.The House of Representatives filed an emergency appeal to the Federal Supreme Court, asking the Supreme Court Justice to intervene, but the Supreme Court rejected it.

Teri's feeding tube was pulled out for the third time.Without outside intervention, she will inevitably die within the next week or two.Teri's husband said that this is exactly what Teri wanted, "This is Teri's wish, this is Teri's choice", and Mike is working hard for Teri's wish to be realized, and is fighting for Teri's "death". s right".Those who do not want to live in this way have the right to "die with dignity".Taili's parents said that their daughter is still alive, and they want to continue to live. To live is Taili's wish. Now they are fighting for Taili's "right to life."

The case of Tai Li shocked the society.There is social support on both sides.Teri's parents, however, have exhausted all judicial and political avenues in the state. After March 18, they can only once again appeal to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.In the following two weeks, when their daughter lingered in front of death, the dilemma of life and death once again alarmed the federal government and the three major branches of Florida's legislative, executive, and judicial branches, alarmed all the media in the country, and alarmed almost everyone in the United States.Those who support her husband Mike and those who sympathize with her parents, the Schindlers, have formed two major appeal camps.This confrontation of ideas has exposed the contradictions in American society, and it also provides us with an opportunity to observe how American society responds to contradictions and difficulties.

2. Each has its own role on the institutional stage The reason why the American system has been able to operate for two hundred years is inseparable from the consistency of the basic principles of the American political elite. Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, there have been party politics, and there have been opposition groups.More than two hundred years ago, the great Thomas Jefferson was elected as the third president as an opponent.Voices of opposition and protest are an integral part of the American political system.From the fights and duels in the parliament two hundred years ago, to the time-limited speeches in the parliament today, what has changed is the customs and habits of politicians. What has not changed is that the opposition has always existed, which has become a normal ecology.The reason why this kind of political confrontation can run benignly and never derail is not that the system itself provides a guarantee, but depends on the agreement of politicians in terms of principles and political ethics.This unanimous understanding is that in a country that is "ruled by law" rather than "ruled by men," politicians must respect the rules of the game and the principle of fairness.The game of democratic politics has strategies, risks, and "edges". However, it is morally unacceptable to violate the rules and go one's own way.

This time in the Terry case, the conservatives, mainly President Bush and the Republicans in Congress, played a side ball. When one of Teri's parents appealed to the federal capital after exhausting Florida's judicial process, President Bush and Republicans in Congress faced two major hurdles even if they wanted to intervene. The first is the obstacle of the federal system.According to the U.S. Constitution and traditions, the laws related to marriage, family, guardianship, and medical care involved in Terry's case belong to the jurisdiction of the state, and the federal government has no power to intervene in such matters involving people's personal and family life.The Florida court's judicial process for Teri's case has come to a conclusion. Even if President Bush and others have objections, there is no reason to intervene.The second is the obstacle of decentralization and checks and balances.The Terry case is essentially a civil lawsuit, and it needs to go through judicial channels. It has taken seven full years to start normal judicial procedures at the state level.It is illegal for the president as the head of the executive and the representative of public opinion as the legislator to interfere in the judiciary.Even if they see this incident as an opportunity to promote their political ideas, even if they think that standing up can attract and unite conservative people and benefit their own votes, but according to the rules of separation of powers, they must first find that the American legal system can accommodate them. a way to do it. The path Republican leaders in Congress found was to pass a bill in the federal Congress that would allow federal courts to review the case. Coincidentally, after March 18, Congress is in the two-week Easter recess.Easter is a big or small holiday. Congress has a traditional holiday, allowing members of Congress to return to their hometown constituencies, have the opportunity to communicate with their voters, and use this time to start their own planning activities.Therefore, at this time, most of the congressmen are not in Washington, the capital, but in their hometowns, and some are abroad. According to the Constitution, the bill must be passed by a majority vote in both houses of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and then signed by the President to take effect.A recess in Congress would have both advantages and disadvantages for passing such a bill.Advantageously, the House and Senate can still declare a session to vote on the bills submitted.If there is no objection, it can be passed by oral vote on the spot, and the number of people present counts, and there is no need to require a quorum.This voting method must be voted in advance, and the condition is that there can be no objectors.If someone objects, a quorum of members must be convened according to the law, that is, more than half of the people present, and the vote will be valid. On Saturday, March 19, House and Senate leaders worked overtime to craft a bill acceptable to both chambers.This kind of bill, initiated by the federal legislature, involves the expansion of the jurisdiction of the federal government, which is equivalent to the redistribution of power. Even small changes are institutional game-changing rules, which will inevitably arouse doubts and opposition. The most difficult bill.Usually such a bill has to go through a long debate from its introduction to its passage, which is protracted.But Teri couldn't wait.Therefore, the bills that the Senate can accept can only be very limited, stating that the case of Terry Schiavo will be specifically reviewed by the federal court.However, the tradition of the House of Representatives is not to legislate on individual cases.Moreover, if the bill is aimed at Taili's case, and Taili's husband believes that pulling out Taili's nutrition tube is Taili's "right to die" and it is a personal right, then Congress's legislation to intervene in this case will violate the law. suspicion of individual rights.Violation of the rights of individuals or groups is a punishment.Congress enacts such punitive bills against specific individuals or groups, which is equivalent to the "Bill of Deprivation of Public Rights", which is expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. After a day of hard work on Saturday, a draft compromise bill between the Senate and the House of Representatives was finally produced.The first sentence of this bill is that this is a judicial relief bill for Teri Schiavo's parents.The nine-paragraph bill is simple and carefully worded to allow federal courts to review the case.The bill stipulates the procedures and time for judicial relief, and clearly stipulates that this bill does not change the basic rights stipulated in the U.S. federal and state constitutions and laws, and does not change the federal and state laws related to "assisted suicide". Without setting a precedent, there are no changes to the Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990.It can be seen from the wording of this bill that the drafters fully understand that they are stepping on the rules of the game, and if they are not careful, it will be a foul. The next day was Sunday, and the media reported that the Senate and the House of Representatives voted on the bill separately starting in the afternoon.Once the bill is passed, it will be sent by plane to President Bush, who is on vacation in other places, for signature.Suddenly there was another news that the president temporarily interrupted his vacation and flew back to the White House so that he could sign the bill immediately after it was passed.Making such a move ahead of a congressional vote on a bill is the first modest gesture by President Bush in this matter.How it works remains to be seen. Interestingly, in the Senate vote on Sunday afternoon, only a few Republicans were present among the 100 senators, and none of the Democrats showed up, so no one objected.The bill "passed unanimously" in the Senate with only a few votes. The House of Representatives did not go so well.Democratic congressmen require one-by-one counting of votes, so that there must be a quorum of congressmen to agree to pass.The House decided to vote at 12:01 past midnight.During the afternoon and evening hours, Republican representatives flew from all over the country to the capital to gather a quorum.At nine o'clock in the evening, the debate in the House of Representatives begins, broadcast live on national television.Voting began just after midnight, and the bill passed by a vote of 203 to 58.Among those who agreed, 156 Republicans and 47 Democrats; among those who opposed, 53 Democrats and 5 Republicans.The bill was immediately sent to the White House.At one o'clock in the middle of the night, President Bush was called out of his bedroom and signed in the corridor, effective immediately. The entry into force of this bill opened up judicial channels for Taili's parents at the federal level, and then launched a tragic, tense, and exciting judicial contest for more than ten days.However, the public reacted quite negatively to the legislative actions of President Bush and Congress.According to media reports and opinion polls, about two-thirds of the people believe that the federal legislature and the executive branch should not intervene in this case that is originally a state law, and more than half of the people believe that this is another political attempt of politicians.The approval rating for President Bush's work fell below the 50 percent mark. Until Taili died on the morning of March 31 thirteen days after extubation, Taili's parents went through four levels of judicial procedures in the three major courts of the federal judicial branch in just over a week. The court made all decisions against Taili's parents.The entire federal judiciary has not given Congress and the president any face.Until the day before Terry's death, Terry's parents' second appeal in the 11th U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta was rejected. An appellate judge relentlessly criticized President Bush and Congress for their actions in this case. "Exhibiting an attitude contrary to the blueprint laid down by the Founding Fathers for the administration of a free people."The appeals court judge was nominated by President Bush's father, President Bush Sr., in 1990.He said in his opinion that the federal courts have no jurisdiction in Terry's case, and that the act passed by Congress and the president to allow the federal courts to review the case is unconstitutional. Clearly, the Congress and the President are thinking completely differently from the judges in Terry's case.As an elected official, one must always understand the reaction of the people and interact with the people, but the judges in the judicial branch only focus on the requirements of the law and behave almost inhumanely.This is the original intention of the system design of separation of powers and judicial independence.The function of this system is fully demonstrated in the Taili case. However, it is not necessarily true that President Bush and the Republican members of Congress must have committed a foul this time.The separation of powers and power struggles between the US federal government and states is an eternal topic of federalism.From time to time throughout American history, the federal government has been accused of violating states' rights.Before the Civil War, the southern slave states accused the federal government of violating state rights. They said that slavery was a matter for each state, and it was up to each state to decide.Now, what people still remember is the 1960s. When the federal civil rights law was passed in 1964, it was also strongly accused of violating state rights.Much of today's federal civil rights law, including specific provisions prohibiting racial discrimination in education and public affairs, was historically the domain of state laws.With historical changes, the general trend is that the jurisdiction of the federal law is expanding a little bit. It can be seen that this actually reflects the progress of the times. However, Terry's case is indeed different.The attitude of the people shows that Americans have always distrusted the government.The closer things are to personal life, the less willing they are to be managed by the government.Political conservatives, represented by President Bush and the Republican Party, used to emphasize states' rights, advocating a small government and a big society, and advocating restricting the powers of the federal government.This time, in order to emphasize the values ​​of the conservatives on the issue of life, they used the federal power in their hands in turn to make an attempt to challenge the state's rights.This approach is quite risky, so the motion for the federal bill was criticized as soon as it appeared. President Bush must have expected it too.In a short speech after signing the federal bill, he said that this is a very complicated situation, and serious doubts have arisen. At such a time, "It is wise toal ways err on the side of life" (It is wise toal ways err on the side of life).Bush's words are very interesting. He used a word err that is not commonly used in colloquial language. The meaning of err in the dictionary has two meanings, one is to make a mistake, and the other is to break the rules and do things not according to the generally accepted standards.Everyone knows that Bush is not a person who can express himself well on the spot, so this sentence must have been written in advance.This sentence uses such a word, and the implication is that if we are out of line, then it is best to be on the side of protecting life.That is to say, Bush knew in his heart that this was a political adventure. In the next ten days, Bush's words were repeatedly quoted by the White House spokesman.His younger brother, the governor of Florida, also learned to use the phrase to make his position known.When a series of court rulings in the judiciary branch were all unfavorable to Tai Li’s parents, the external pressure once again concentrated on the federal and state administrative branches, and the brothers who held power at the federal and state levels took action to rescue Tai Li. .Conservative demonstrators in Florida asked Governor Jeb to order Teri to be taken out of the hospital and placed under the custody of the state government.The well-known radical conservative Pat Buchanan said on TV that President Bush should send the federal armed forces to Florida and put Teri under the protection of the federal government because Florida judicial officials are forcing An American citizen died of hunger and thirst. Both the Bush brothers understood that they had already stepped on the line, and if they made another move, they would be offside.President Bush said, I believe that in such a case, both the legislative branch and the executive branch should err on the side of life, which we did, and now we have to see how the courts make their decision.His meaning is very clear, he can only do so much, the decision is the court's, and he cannot ignore the judiciary.After the Federal Supreme Court rejected the appeal of Teri's parents, the White House spokesperson made it clear that the president has done everything he can.In Florida, the president's younger brother, Governor Jeb, appeared on television to respond to calls from conservatives for action.He said with an apologetic face, I cannot violate the order of the court. On this issue, neither the US Constitution nor the Florida Constitution gives me the power to take action. Looking back now, it can be said that what the Bush brothers did in the Terry case was all expected.They became the center of controversy in this case and were opposed by many people. On the surface, they lost from the beginning to the end, but it is hard to say what the political gains and losses are.They took a risk and showed the courage to take responsibility for their own moral ideals, but they stopped in time and never violated the system and the rules of the game. The saying "err on the side of life" (err on the side of life) is remarkable.On the contrary, in the midst of the opposition from the media and the public, the politicians of the Democratic Party seem to be shy and evasive. They dare not express what they want to express, and dare not oppose what they want to oppose. This is a stark contrast.This may go back and explain why the conservative Republican Party has gained the upper hand in the American political arena in recent years. 3. Live or die The United States is an immigrant society characterized by diversity of culture and values. In the case of Taili, the public formed a sharp confrontation of views, the essence of which was a difference in outlook on life.The liberals who support Taili's husband hold a rational outlook on life. They believe in science, modern medicine, and experts.People in a "persistent vegetative state," who are unconscious and clinically dead, are irreversible and unlikely to recover, medical experts say.In this case, there is no point in maintaining life with a feeding tube, and removing the feeding tube is the legitimate and "should" thing to do.Conservative people who sympathize with Taili's parents hold a traditional Christian view of life, and regard life itself as a gift from God, a miracle.They believe that miracles of life are possible.The confrontation between the two factions on the Taili case involved the whole of the United States in the ten days from March 18 to 31.In those days, when the TV was turned on, almost all major stations were discussing the case, the headlines of all newspapers were also discussing the case, and the discussion programs of all radio stations were also discussing the case.The two factions talk about their own viewpoints and blame each other. It seems that there is no possibility of communication.In fact, this is only one side of the matter.The other side of the matter is that among the diverse values ​​of American society, there is a core value with high consistency.If you can't see their consistency, you can't understand what they are fighting for. This core value is their ideal: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.No matter what point of view or faction, this is the most important thing that Americans agree on.And life is the most important of the most important values.The importance of life leads to the independent decision of life.The right to decide on matters involving personal life belongs to the individual.For example, in the process of medical treatment, the final decision of all medical measures is in the hands of the patient himself. The "Jehovah's Witnesses" refused blood transfusions, and doctors could not give these patients blood transfusions, even if it would cost their lives.When college students enroll, the school requires students to receive vaccinations.But some religious beliefs prohibit immunizations, and schools can only exempt such students, even if it puts them at risk of contracting infectious diseases. In the same way, when a person is seriously ill and cannot recover, or has a terminal illness with a certain prognosis, it is up to the patient to decide whether to continue medication.When a patient loses the ability to decide or express, the right to make decisions is in the hands of the legal guardian.When to stop drug treatment, stop using life support system to support life, who will make this decision, what procedure should be followed, and what standards should be used to make this decision. Each state in the United States has state laws to stipulate.By the same token, the law states that medical means cannot be used to induce or hasten the end of life.Situations like Terry's are not covered by the term "euthanasia".In the United States, assisted suicide is illegal, so the so-called "euthanasia" by giving a shot is still illegal.But if living becomes painful, then everyone has the right to decide not to take medication and wait passively for death; on the contrary, everyone also has the right to request to continue to use modern medical technology to maintain their own lives. The "right to die" and the "right to life" combined are the right to life.In other words, if Taili wants to live and use a feeding tube to maintain her life, then she should be allowed to live; if Taili herself wants to die, then the feeding tube should be pulled out, so that Taili can die with dignity . There is no disagreement between the two factions in the Terry case on the above stated principles.Their disagreement is whether Teri wants to die or to live. People who take a rational view of life think that in Taili's situation, life is meaningless and has no dignity, and it is better to die.They said that if they were in the same situation, they would definitely ask to be extubated and die safely.So they believed what Taili's husband said, and Taili herself wanted to die.Neither the government, society nor her family has the right to deprive her of her right to die peacefully.Those who take the traditional Christian view of life believe that life is a gift from God, believe in miracles, and believe that Terry, as a Catholic, holds the same life values ​​as them.If they themselves were in the same situation, they would continue to pin their hopes on medical progress and miracles, so they thought that Teri wanted to live, but she just couldn't express it.The court and the society pulled out her feeding tube, which violated her wish to live and forced her to die, which is tantamount to murder. Here is where the two factions diverge. Fifteen years ago, when Teri lost consciousness and expressive ability, she was only twenty-six years old. She did not leave a written document of whether she wanted to live or die now.According to the law of Florida, after the patient enters a "persistent vegetative state", if the patient does not leave a clear will, then the right to decide whether to pull out the nutrition tube is in the hands of the legal guardian.Florida law takes marriage very seriously, and Terry's legal guardian is her husband, Mike.So the state court accepted Mike's statement that Terry only wanted to die at this time.Mack told the court that Terry had previously communicated such wishes to him.There is no evidence for what situation Taili was in, how she said it, and whether it can explain Taili's current wishes.But to the court, it doesn't matter.The important thing is, who owns the right to represent Tai Li to decide Tai Li's wishes.The law stipulates that the husband is the guardian, so the court can only accept the husband's statement.The court must rule in accordance with the law and has no other choice. So the Florida court, after seven years of litigation and appeals, finally ruled that Taili's feeding tube could be pulled out. But for Teri's parents, there are many questions here.After Tai Li fell ill, Mike moved into his parents-in-law's house to take better care of Tai Li.At that time, he did not mention that Teri had previously wished to die under such circumstances. Later, it was Mike who “remembered” Teri’s previous wish when he applied to the court to remove Teri’s feeding tube.At this time, Mike already had another fiancée, and had two children with his fiancée. In fact, he already had another family.However, Florida law still recognizes Terry and Mike's marriage, still recognizes Mike as Terry's guardian, and still recognizes Mike's statement that Terry is seeking death.For Terry's parents, Mike has given up on their daughter, and his claim that Terry wants to die is not credible.Out of parental love, they decided that Tai Li wanted to live. When Taili's nutrition tube was pulled out for the third time on March 18, did Taili want to live or die?Does anyone know?Medical experts say that the "persistent vegetative state" has no consciousness at all, that is to say, it is impossible to talk about wanting to die or want to live. However, the doctor invited by Taili's parents said that Taili may not be in a continuous vegetative state, but may be in a "minimally conscious state."Judge Greer of the state court judged according to law and accepted Terri's husband's statement.However, for Tai Li's parents, and for the conservative people who sympathize with them, they couldn't let go of this thought: In case Taili wanted to live, pulling out the nutrition tube would be tantamount to starving Taili to death. Whether Teri wants to live or die is really a question.It is this Hamlet-esque problem that makes the case so tragic and makes the lost judicial effort of Teri's parents to save their daughter extremely tragic. 4. Poor parents In the early hours of March 21, the emergency relief bill passed by the House and Senate of Congress was signed by President Bush and became effective. Taili's parents immediately filed an application with the federal district court in Tampa, Central Florida, requesting that the federal court order that Taili should be rehabilitated. Install the nutrient tube.The court, like most U.S. courts, uses computers to randomly assign presiding judges to cases.The case was assigned to Judge James Whittemore.Whitmore was a federal judge nominated by President Clinton in 1999, which usually means that the judge may have a more liberal leaning.Judge Whitmore ordered a hearing.At this time, Teri pulled out the feeding tube and entered the fourth day. The lawyers of Taili's parents and the lawyer of Taili's husband stated their demands and reasons at the hearing.It was two hours of very difficult hearings.Judge Whitmore asked Taili's parents to try their best to provide legal or jurisprudence that can be used as a basis, and provide new evidence to prove that Taili's rights have been violated.During the hearing, the judge sighed several times, covered his face and bowed his head in silence.Lawyers for Tai Li's parents asked the judge to order the feeding tube to be connected first, because Tai Li has lost water and nutrition for more than three days and cannot wait.But in the end the judge refused to issue a verdict immediately.When night falls, no one knows what Judge Whitmore will decide.Media reporters waited outside the courthouse overnight as the case progressed by the hours and minutes. At two o'clock in the morning on the 22nd, the federal court in Tampa distributed to the media reporters Judge Whitmore's 13-page court order.This is the first and most important order issued by the federal judicial system in this case.Whitmore first made a careful examination of the judicial power and legal basis of the court, pointing out that the constitutionality of the federal act is still a problem, but for the purpose of temporary relief, the court "presume" the federal act is legal constitutional.The judge then noted that the court would re-examine the case within the limited scope set out in federal law to answer the question of whether to issue an injunction to provide relief for the Schindlers.For the Federal Court to issue an order to put Teri on a feeding tube, four conditions must be met, the first and most important of which is that the Federal Court must be satisfied that there is evidence that Teri's parents have likely to succeed.What Judge Whitmore meant was that the basis and authority for judging the dispute in this case are still the laws and courts of Florida. What the federal law allows the federal court to do is to see if the state court has missed anything or made a mistake. , has there been an irreparable error.If there is, then a temporary injunction is issued as a relief to the likely injured party; if not, then the federal court cannot resentence. Judge Whitmore's order stated that the case has exhausted judicial procedures in Florida courts, and now there is nothing to prove that Taili's parents are likely to overturn the original judgment through a new trial, and Taili's parents are unlikely to succeed. So Judge Whitmore denied the request of Teri's parents. Apparently, the federal court held that the federal act did not give them the power to overturn the Florida court's decision.The most important factor in determining the judgment of the Florida court is that according to the law, Terry's guardian is her husband Mike.Therefore, Florida Governor Jeb Bush said that Florida's guardianship laws should be changed, and he will ask the state legislature to amend the law.Regrettably, it is not a one-day effort to amend the state law. As long as the state law still recognizes Mike as a guardian, the judgment in this case will be difficult to change.Judge Whitmore's verdict casts an ominous shadow on Teri's parents. Teri's parents didn't dare to delay for a moment, and immediately appealed to the 11th Federal Court of Appeals in Atlanta. According to the federal judicial appeal process, the case will be decided by a committee of three appellate judges.In less than a day, on Wednesday, March 23, in another early morning, the Court of Appeal ruled against Teri's parents by 2-1.The appeals court's opinion stated that the 11th Federal Court of Appeals recognized that what Teri suffered was an "absolute tragedy", but the federally passed bill cannot overturn years of trials in Florida courts.As an appellate court, they only review Judge Whitmore procedurally, and only if they find that Judge Whitmore has abused and misused the judge's power, the appellate court will directly order the feeding tube of Teri.Now the Court of Appeal believes that Judge Whitmore's order was carefully thought-out, and they uphold Judge Whitmore's order. The appeals court also noted that, in order to make this ruling, they presume that the federally passed act is constitutional.But whether the bill is actually constitutional remains an open question. Next, people all over the United States know that Teri's parents will appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. On the morning of the 23rd, they decided to apply to all twelve judges of the Eleventh Federal Court of Appeal to review the case.此举显然是为了在上诉到美国法律的最高殿堂以前，能够多一个扭转的机会。根据联邦司法规则，他们有权提出全体上诉法官的复审，但是上诉法官也可以拒绝复审。 几个小时后，联邦第十一上诉法院回复，上诉法官以十比二作出了拒绝复审的决定。泰丽父母只有最后一条路可走，上诉最高法院。 根据联邦最高法院的权力，任何一个大法官可以在接到上诉以后，先下令接上泰丽的营养管，然后再展开听证和裁决的程序。媒体报道，泰丽父母将把上诉请求递交给大法官肯尼迪，因为肯尼迪大法官是以保守价值观出名的。 最高法院的回答来得非常快。24日星期四早晨，媒体报道，最高法院作出了答复，拒绝受理泰丽父母的上诉。至此，在联邦国会通过法案仅仅三天后，泰丽父母已经走过了联邦司法分支三大法院四个层次的司法程序，一一惨遭失败。电视镜头上的泰丽父母，憔悴沮丧，忧心如焚。泰丽拔掉营养管进入第六天，但是仍然活着。而泰丽父母，已经用尽联邦司法程序，山穷水尽了。 白宫发言人说，布什总统对联邦最高法院的答复“表示失望”。而泰丽丈夫麦克的律师说，他们感激最高法院的答复。在佛罗里达泰丽住的医院外，示威民众昼夜不散。有些是支持泰丽丈夫的，更多的是支持泰丽父母的保守派民众。 泰丽丈夫的律师说，现在泰丽很安静，很舒服（comfortable），她在实现自己的愿望，在安然地死去。 而泰丽父母对着电视机说，他们探望泰丽必须经过监护人麦克同意。在探望泰丽以后，他们说泰丽现在口干唇焦，但是还活着，泰丽还是想活，泰丽在为自己的生命搏斗。他们也不放弃，他们还要为泰丽的生命努力。 泰丽父母回到了佛罗里达州泰丽的医院。晚上九点半，泰丽的父亲说，我们的惟一希望是州长。当天下午，佛罗里达州长布什采取了一个动作，向州法庭提出一项申请，要求由州政府的儿童和家庭部接手监护泰丽，其理由是，本州的一位医生，曾经探视过泰丽，在重新观看泰丽的录像带以后说，“持续植物状态”很可能是对泰丽的误诊，泰丽有可能是处于“最小意识状态”，而不是持续植物状态。拔掉营养管可能是剥夺了泰丽的生命权，州政府应该干预。这位州长说：新的信息提出了严重的疑问，要求州政府立即采取行动。“在不确定的情况下，我们应该偏向保护她”（err on the side of life）。 州长出面的这一申请，又到达了州法庭法官格列尔手里。格列尔没有即刻作出裁决，反过来批准了泰丽丈夫的要求，如果州政府儿童和家庭部的官员来医院，就有权加以阻挡。几乎同时，据以同样的新证据，泰丽的父母向坦帕的联邦法庭法官惠特摩发出新的诉讼，说拔掉泰丽的营养管是违反了泰丽“生的权利”。之所以能够这样做，是因为泰丽父母一方提出，新证据证明泰丽的生命权受到了侵犯，现在的诉求是要争取保护泰丽的合法权利。佛罗里达州的两个不同城市里，新的努力又在州和联邦的两个司法系统展开。 5月25日星期五，是基督教的耶稣受难日，也是泰丽拔掉营养管后的第七天。联邦法官惠特摩主持的法庭听证会历时三个小时。泰丽父母的律师搬出了宪法第十四修正案，指出每个人都应该受到法律的保护，“生命不应被否定”。他说，新的证人能为重审提供有价值的证据。 他要求至少再让泰丽延续三十天生命。但是泰丽丈夫的律师说，州法庭早就已经发现，泰丽并不愿用人工方式维持生命。法官惠特摩休庭后，经过思考，又一次做出拒绝泰丽父母的裁决。泰丽父母再一次向亚特兰大的联邦第十一上诉法院上诉，再一次被否决。泰丽父母决定不再申请上诉法院全体法官复审。他们的律师说，他们在联邦层面上的司法途径已经用尽。 5月26日，星期六，泰丽拔掉营养管后第八天。佛罗里达州法官格列尔再一次否决了泰丽父母为泰丽提供营养管的要求。晚上，佛罗里达州最高法院又一次驳回了泰丽父母的上诉。 至此，在联邦和州的两个层面上，可以走的司法途径都已走完，泰丽父母作出的司法努力，全部失败。似乎只剩下最后一件事可做，那就是等待死神来把泰丽接走。可是电视屏幕上，泰丽父母对医院外昼夜守候的民众说，他们仍然没有放弃希望。在这几天里，每天有民众企图闯入有警察层层封锁的医院而被捕，有些还是儿童，他们声称是要给泰丽送水。泰丽父母呼吁民众不要违法，呼吁他们回家。 5月27日星期天，泰丽拔管后第九天，复活节，是耶稣受难后复活的日子。泰丽父母请来神父，为泰丽举行领圣餐的仪式。在一番周折后，经过泰丽丈夫的同意，神父在泰丽的舌头上，滴下一滴葡萄酒。在天主教的仪式里，这象征着耶稣基督的血。 在此后的日子里，泰丽父母又向亚特兰大的联邦第十一上诉法院提起上诉。再一次遭拒绝后，向首都华盛顿的联邦最高法院上诉，再一次被最高法院拒绝。他们憔悴悲伤的面容天天出现在电视屏幕上。谁都知道，时间不在他们一边。 他们的努力注定是失败的，但是他们明知不可为而为之，屡败屡战，绝不言放弃，其悲壮和残酷，把为人父母对女儿的骨肉之爱，发挥到了极致。 3月31日，在拔掉营养管后第13天，泰丽终于死了。 五、泰丽留下的遗产 泰丽死后，佛罗里达州议会闻讯静默致哀。布什总统讲话说，文明的本质，是强者应该保护弱者。4月1日，泰丽死后第二天，《纽约时报》文章的标题是，“夏沃一案将重新塑造美国法律”。电视上法律专家们说，今后几十年里，法学院的学生将会一遍一遍地分析泰丽一案。泰丽之死，无疑会对联邦和各州的相关法律，对人们的生死习俗发生长远的影响。 围绕泰丽的生和死而发生的冲突，表面上看只是美国天天发生的保守派和自由派之争，是共和党和民主党之斗。可是必须看到，两派在这种争斗下面的一致性，才是事件的本质。战后出生的婴儿潮，正在走向老年。上世纪生活水平的提高和科技的进步，提高了人们的寿命。这些因素使得人生终结阶段的生命问题，显得越来越重要。活着还是死去，怎样活，怎样死，哈姆雷特的问题是一个天天存在的现实问题。这个问题，不仅让持传统基督教生命观的保守派感到困惑，持理性和科学生命观的自由派也同样困惑。在这种情况下，将会出现一系列的矛盾，需要法律来规约。 3月29日，泰丽死前两天，着名黑人民权运动领袖杰西·杰克森来到佛罗里达州的医院，表达支持泰丽父母。他的出现具有象征性意义，因为同情泰丽父母的都是保守派，而杰克森是着名的自由派领袖。他的出现表明，泰丽一案在政治、法律和社会层面上留下的遗产，不是属于一党一派，而是属于全美国甚至全人类。