The Schiavo case: Last chance gone?

In a breath-taking judicial marathon, what appears to be the last decision in the Schiavo case has been handed down by the judges of the Supreme Court, in a final decision have refused for the sixth time in total to hear an appeal by the parents of Mrs Schiavo. At the time of this post, the decision of the Supreme Court is not yet available online for comments. I however expect it to be as short and laconic as the fifth decision was.

However, this decision, which stands very much in the line of previous decisions on the same case, came after another last-minute appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal of Atlanta (11th Circuit) for a hearing en banc (see my previous posts on a previous Schindlers' appeal to Atlanta to understand the meaning).

Here again, the petition was denied after a poll of the judges. While the previous decision by the Court of Appeal of Atlanta (in a three-judge formation) had a dissenting opinion, this time a concurring opinion was delivered by judge Birch. As usual, you may read the whole decision on www.findlaw.com, here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/33005ca11rhrng2.pdf

I am first going to summarize the arguments of the judge and then critically examine them, in light of some comments of lawyers in the States.

Judge Birch initiated his comments in quoting the legal axiom "hard facts make bad law". He went on to comment:

"The tragic events that have afflicted Mrs. Schiavo and that have been compounded by the resulting pasionate inter-family struggle and media focus certainly qualify as "hard facts". And, while the members of her family and the members of Congress have acted in a way that is both fervent and sincere, the time has come for dispassionate discharge of duty."

Judge Birch then severely criticized the position of Congress by recalling that "activist judges" are those who are said to be deciding in agreement with their personal opinions, and not in agreement with law such "as constrained by legal precedent and, ultimately our Constitution". Judge Birch then considered that "despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our govenment have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - the Constitution".

He then added that under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, Federal Courts do not have jurisdiction to know of subjects which belong to state court jurisdiction. Read here this article of the Florida Coastal Law Journal on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine to better understand what it is about: http://www.fcsl.edu/LawReview/Vol2Num1/Proctor.htm.

The judge then went on to explain that while Federal Courts have been assuming the constitutionality of Terris' law as it is called, he would rather consider that it is unconstitutional. And he raised the great question everybody has been pointing out since the beginning of the involvement of the legislative and the executive in the Schiavo case: the separation of powers.

He noticed the parts of the act (see my previous post "The Terri Schiavo case, or the question of who decides for whom...") that were ordering Federal Courts to have jurisdiction on the Schiavo case, and commented as follows:

"Because these provision constitute legislative dictation of how a federal court should exercise its judicial functions (known as a "rule of decision"), the Act invades the province of the judiciary and violates the separation of powers principle (...) By arrogating vital judicial functions to itself in the passage of the provisions of Section 2 of the Act, Congress violated core constitutional separation principles, it prescribed a "rule of decision" and acted unconstitutionally".

He concluded by adding that the unconstitutional parts of the Act were not "severable" (the Courts cannot nullify only those unconstitutional parts without nullifying the whole act). hence, the whole act was to be judged unconstitutional.


This concurring opinion is then to read in relation to an article by a Findlaw columnist, Ed. Lazarus, which can be found here: "Why Congress Intervention predictably did not help the Schindlers". The author notices that the Act was deficient on three counts:

1° It was a retroactive legislation for a single lawsuit (I've previously given my opinion on the technical validity of this type of measures).

2° Congress tried to shove aside the precedents and notably the Rooker-Feldman doctrine on the jurisdiction of Federal Courts

3° Congress "impinged" upon the rights of the patient to refuse extraordinary life-saving treatment (and he refers to Cruzan v. Missouri Dep't of Health, which, while affirming the principle of a possibility for the patient to refuse such treatment, had held that there was not sufficient "clear and convincing evidence" to say that Cruzan would have wished this issue).

I might as well repeat my arguments given in a previous posts. The technique is quite criticable, especially as the author rightfully points out, Congress has not passed a general law providing care for all patients in a persistent vegetative state. The French newspaper Le Monde noticed that while Republicans have been insisting to save Terri Schiavo, they were not very emotional about a boy in the coma whose care had to be discontinued because his parents did not have money to cure him.

The two other arguments are less of an issue, as far as I am concerned. Actually, the supporters of the suspension of feeding for Terri Schiavo have been pointing out that all legal guarantees (due process) have been safeguarded for Mrs Schiavo. The husband was her legal guardian, the courts critically examined his testimony, the parents have had their word to say.... We might even add that the courts have been extremely receptive to the repeated appeals they introduced since the appeals were sometimes violating all rules on presentation of evidence and deadlines.

However, a lawyer cannot only keep reading the law, in the hope of knowing what he ought to do. The laws passed in the 1930's which ordered the elimination or "euthanasia" of mentally ill patients in Nazi Germany were also very constitutional and respected all the rules foreseen for the publication of statutes. They nevertheless ran counter against a fundamental principle which was affirmed in declarations of rights after WW II: the right to life. The fact that decisions have been coherent with a legal framework should not stop us in considering the legitimacy of statutes.

For instance, I made mention, in a previous post of the Act relating to euthanasia in Belgium: in my view, this act lacks any form of legitimacy, since it touches to the basic foundations of our society. I thus hold the belief, as a citizen, that I am required to refuse the application of the act and to fight against it. Behold: I am not comparing the Schiavo case to the question of the legitimacy of euthanasia. However, my point is that if it is held that the Common Good is at stake (whatever might be the public opinion) each citizen has the duty of doing what his conscience commands, irrespective of a constitution or of statutes.

The question of knowing what sides the Federal judges would be taking in the Schiavo case was another issue raised in the article. It appears, actually, according to the author, that the federal courts have to "incur political costs for no reason". Denying the reinsertion of the tube was, allegedly the "quickest" way of extricating federal courts from the situation.

One may regret that Federal Courts are so reluctant to affirm that there are overarching principles which supersede even the Constitution... It is maybe the effect of a very Kelsenian reading of the law.

A point which was rightly pointed out by the author was the Act was never giving substantive rights to the parents of Mrs Schiavo: it was "too little, too late". The next step ought to be to define a position as to the general attitude of the US towards persistent vegetative patients: maintaining them in life indefinitely? Permanent "do not ressucitate" orders after a certain laps of time? Or, taking off any life support after a determined period?

The answers are not simple. Especially, because they mean a hard question: who is going to pay? At a time where Congress enforces large tax cuts, that means that there are less and less funds left to foot the bill. It is only to be hoped that the Schiavo case highlights the need for solidarity with the most vulnerably patients.

The latest legal developments: a sad conclusion to a fight for life

After the end of a holy week marked by the ultimate attempts of the parents of Mrs Schiavo to keep their daughter in life, the case seems to be dragging miserably to a conclusion. Indeed, while I had made mention in my posts on the 24 March that the parents had filed a last-minute appeal to the Supreme Court asking for a stay of the decision to withhold feeding from Mrs Schiavo, a few hours later, the Supreme Court had already replied in the negative. The decision of the Supreme Court is short and dry as ever law has been:

THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 2005
ORDER IN PENDING CASE
04A825
SCHIAVO, EX REL. SCHINDLER V. SCHIAVO, MICHAEL, ET AL.
The application for stay of enforcement of judgment pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court is denied.

The original copy of the decision may be found here, on the site of www.findlaw.com: http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/orders/2004/032405pzr.pdf

In a way, the decision does not come as much of a surprise. I had made reference to the extreme sensibility of the Supreme Court in its present composition to the public opinion. Sometimes that may lead to good, as is the case with the continuing restriction of the field of application of the death penalty. Sometimes, it leads to these types of unmotivated decisions.

A last attempt was done by the parents by asking to the local judge Greer, then on to an appeal to the District Court of Florida on four of the ten arguments which they have been proposing to submit on the merits. The decision may be found here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32505ord2nd.pdf

In the first place, the parents sought to demonstrate that Mrs. Schiavo fell under the Americans with disability act, an act prohibiting refusing "public entities" from refusing assistance to handicapped persons. According to the lawyers, Michael Schiavo and the hospice were "public entities", but the Court rejected that assumption by taking support on the "plain language" of the act and the statutory definition of "public entities". A side comment might be that any student of common law would benefit much from reading these decisions as they make plain reference to the techniques of legislative interpretation of the US courts.

The second argument was taken from the fact that the hospice was violating the Rehabilitation Act withdrawing feeding and liquids from Mrs. Schiavo was taking away from her help to which she was entitled under that act. The Courts rejected that argument since the act is there only to avoid discrimination in the access to federal funds for which they would be qualified had it not been for their handicap. They found here that were it not for her handicap, she would not be entitled to medical assistance (and the act, in addition, did not apply to medical assistance), but furthermore the hospice was not withdrawing feeding from Mrs Schiavo because she was disabled, but at the request of her guardian, and in compliance with a Court order.

The third argument was taken from a violation of the due process clause in the fourteenth amendment. Here, the parents of Mrs Schiavo maintained that the inferior courts should have taken into account only "clear and convincing" evidence of the will of Mrs. Schiavo, and they rested on Cruzan v.Missouri Dep't of Health. The court found, on the contrary, that the "clear and convincing" evidence was found by the Supreme Court not to overburden the right of the patient to refuse treatment. It did not apply when it came to protecting the right to life of Mrs. Schiavo, since if the judge had made evidentiary mistakes they were a question of State jurisdiction, and no matter for Federal courts.

The fourth argument was made under the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (eight amendment). The Court ruled that it was inapplicable to the case of Mrs. Schiavo, since there was no" finding of guilt" and that she was not detained. This might be the point to comment on divergences from the European case law. In Europe, the ECHR has found that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman and degrading treatments or punishments did apply also to settings where people were not being detained, as long as the treatment had a certain level of severity and was caused by the state.

The fifth argument was the right to life (fourteenth amendement) and the due process clause. The Court found that a person may be deprived of life as long as the "due process clause" has been respected. The Court found that it was the case, here, and hence found that there wasn't any substantive likeness for success in a procedure on the merits.

This last argument is worth some comments. It should be construed in relation to the death penalty which is still present in a number of US States. Taking the hypothesis that death penalty could be suppressed one day, at the federal level, then I guess that a legal argument for recognising a "right to kill" (that is at the heart of the argument) may be suppressed. It is interesting how extrema se tangunt (extremes reach to each other). The proponents of death penalty are probably to be found among the same who are said to be pro life. But the Court, here has judged that the US constitution protects a right to kill another, provided due process is present. Thus the same argument is used both for killing an unconscious patient, and for killing a convicted criminal... But that is part and parcel of those contradictions which make democracy. And it is all the more painful because of that.

Polls and opinion manipulation

A few words of update on my previous post: I had indicated that 63 % of Americans supported the decision of removing the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo. A rapid read-around on another blog http://attemptedmurder.blogspot.com/ (strongly pro-life as everyone can guess) has brought me to revise this finding. Actually, one of my most interesting courses was that of historical critics: it taught me to check the way the questions were formulated. And indeed, the question as it was formulated was :

Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.
What’s your opinion on this case - do you support or oppose the decision to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube? Do you support/oppose it strongly or somewhat?

You may find the whole poll on this site: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/978a1Schiavo.pdf

This strongly suggests a supportive reply, since it is alleged that her condition is irreversible (that is all the essence of the debate between the parents and the husband).

A more recent poll has found the amount of support for the removal of the tube decreasing to 52 %, in an USA Today phone poll.

So is the case open again? It all depends now on the legal creativity of lawmakers or the Supreme Court.

Terri Schiavo's case: the last chance for the parents?

The latest news in the Terri Schiavo case (just read my previous article to understand what I am speaking about, in the case that you did not follow the question) was that after the District Court of Tampa, a three-judge panel of the Cour of Appeal of Altanta denied again the request of the parents of Terri Schiavo to have the feeding tube reinserted. What is more interesting at this point was that it has been a 2-1 vote with one judge dissenting. The dissenting opinion (Judge Wilson) which you may read with the whole judgement on my own site here holds that

"not granting injunctive relief frustrates Congress's intent which is to maintain the status quo by keeping Terri Schiavo alive until the federal courts have a new and adequate opportunity to consider the constitutional issues raised by the plaintiffs"

On the point of legal techniques, it ought to be precised that the demand for injunctive relief formulated by the parents of Terri Schiavo rested on the All Writs Act. To better understand the nature of this legal remedy, we refer you to a page of www.answers.com, hereafter quoted. The quotation from the site is very clear:

"Early U.S. law inherited the traditional English writ system, in the sense of a rigid set of forms of relief that the law courts were authorized to grant. In the United States federal court system, the All Writs Act (28 U.S.C. 1651) authorizes courts to "issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law"".

The whole text may be found on this site: http://www.answers.com/topic/writ-1

Well, as most of you may have understood, this is essentially an equitable relief: for those who do not know common law, I have inserted another quotation from the labor law encyclopaedia:

The distinction between "legal" and "equitable" relief is an important aspect of the American legal system. The right of jury trial in civil cases is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution, but only in cases that traditionally would have been handled by the law courts at Common Law. The question of whether a case should be determined by a jury depends largely on the type of relief the plaintiff requests. If a plaintiff requests damages in the form of money or certain other forms of relief, such as the return of a specific item of property, the remedy is considered legal, and the American Constitution guarantees a right to a trial by jury. On the other hand, if the plaintiff requests an injunction, declaratory judgment, specific
performance or modification of contract, or other non-monetary relief, the claim would usually be one in equity.
A final important distinction between law and equity is the source of the rules governing the decisions. In law, decisions are made by reference to legal doctrines or statutes. In contrast, equity, with its emphasis on fairness and flexibility, has only general guides, known as the maxims of equity. Indeed, one of the historic criticisms of equity as it developed was that it had no fixed rules of its own and each Lord Chancellor (who traditionally administered the courts of equity on behalf of the King) gave judgment according to his own conscience. John Selden, an eminent seventeenth century jurist, declared, "Equity varies with the length of the Chancellor's foot."

The complete text may be found on this site: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Equity

Hence, in the present case, the parents of Mrs Schiavo were seeking for an equitable relief, which is to reinsert the feeding tube in the comatose patient, in order that she may live to see the issue of discussions on the merits of the case before Federal jurisdictions. The majority judges have rejected this demand because according to them the All Writs Act did not apply to the case. Indeed, the majority reasoned that the All Writs Act which empowers jurisdictions to establish extraordinary writs could not be applied when there was a way of obtaining an injunction. The majority also referred to debates in Congress where it was made clear that the Act was not obliging Federal Courts to grant a stay (which would have been too large an intervention of the legislative into the judicial branch). The dissenting judge, on his side, sought to show that there were grounds for ordering injunctive relief. I am very much brought to sympathize with his reading of the law, as a formal mechanism which ought not to loose vision of the Common Good.

Well, the Schindler failed in their first attempt, and though they are supported by large numbers of the American public, time is playing against them. It is now six days since the feeding tube was removed, and the first signs of renal damages should be appearing any time from now (a normal human being is deemed not to be able to stay three days living without fluid intake).

A last chance attempt was made to have the Court of Appeal to reconsider its decision by having it seated en banc (in its complete formation), but a polling among the judges of Atlanta brought out a 10-2 negative decision (which you may read also on my site, over here: http://dawnofeurope.250free.com/32305norhrng.pdf ).

The last attempt to obtain injunctive relief (because that is at the heart of the question: Mrs Schiavo dead, any hearing on the merits will be deemed moot), is an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. You may find it on the site of Findlaw, over here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32305scotusmot.pdf

There is not much hope, though, for the parents to succeed at this point. Opinion polls have shown a majority of the public not agreeing with the legislative technique used by Congress to try and keep Mrs Schiavo alive. The U.S. Supreme Court, much as the European Court of Human Rights has often shown in its decisions that it was very sensible to the opionion (as it is reflected in polls, which is a poor indicator).

On the other hand, another attempt to gain a legislative stay before the Florida assembly (by a bill prohibiting the withdrawal of feeding and fluids from any person in a persistent vegetative state who had no living will) was lost when the Florida Senate voted it down 18-21.

A last attempt was made before judge Greer of Pinella, in order to obtain the reinsertion of the tube, by bringing new evidence that the situation of Mrs Terri Schiavo had been misdiagnosed. According to that evidence, her state would be one of "minimal consciousness" rather than persistent vegetative state.

Once again, these arguments are fascinating, especially by the legal inventivity of US attorneys, but there is a life at stake. And time is running against that life, and each appeal is taking at least one day to be heard. How many days more life for Mrs Schiavo?

The Terri Schiavo case, or the question of who decides for whom...

Hello, after a long silence. Sorry for those of my readers who have been reading daily the blog expecting for an update.

Today, we are going to take a closer look to the case of Terri Schiavo, the lady over whom a guardianship case has become a question of the (improperly called so) “right to die” and rather, in my opinion a question of who decides for whom. And to put things straight from the start, this is not a question of “euthanasia”: it is a question of interruption of care for comatose patients.

Let us recall that after a potassium imbalance, Mrs Schiavo fell into a coma and what is described by courts as a “persistent vegetative state”.

The latest decision in the case was taken by the Federal District judge of Tampa (FL) who denied an emergency request by the parents that feeding tubes be reinserted in Mrs Schiavo, after an extraordinary bill was passed by the US Congress over the week-end (read lower down). The District judge allegedly “grilled” the attorneys of the parents of Mrs Schiavo (who were pushing for maintaining her in life) on the constitutionality of their case, according to CNN . He then denied “injunctive relief” to the parents on the grounds that they did not have any “substantial likelihood of success” in their case before federal jurisdictions. Read the whole story over here . You may also read the whole decision over here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf As you’ll notice, the judge primarily concentrated on verifying if the guarantees of due process had been respected for Mrs. Schiavo.

This last decision came after a long series of proceedings on removal of guardianship from the husband of Mrs Schiavo, Michael Schiavo. These proceedings were initiated by the parents of Mrs Schiavo (follow the timeline on the site of the foundation they established to fight for their daughter).

The fighting was bitter. In the end, however, Mr. Schiavo prevailed. It is worth quoting the way the 2nd District Court of Appeal justified its decision to allow the removal of the feeding from Mrs Schiavo (2nd Dist. Court of Appeals, 6 June 2003, Schindler v. Schiavo, 851.so.2d 182 (Fla, 2nd DCA, 2003):

From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith. But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband.

The text is quoted from an order of Judge Greer of the Circuit Court of Pinella (FL) who denied a motion to stay, and which is available in pdf form here, on the site of the parents.

There are two points that the judge misses, in my opinion: firstly, we do not have the least evidence of the will of Mrs Schiavo besides what her husband says. Secondly, the question is not that of Mrs Schiavo making her own decision; it is that of knowing who is going to decide for a patient who is incompetent and incapable of making her will known. Here, in my opinion, we shoud rather opt in favour of life, when there is a doubt as to the preferred course of action. Ancient Romans had a principle that they applied whenever they had to decide if a man was a person in the sense of the law, or a slave: in the case of doubts, they systematically privilegied the solution which set the person free (favor libertatis). We should doubtless adopt a similar solution in cases of the end of life.

Returning to the legal questions, here is the text of the Act passed by Congress this week-end in order to allow the parents of Mrs Schiavo to take action before federal courts.

AN ACT
For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.
The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.
SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.
Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior
State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously
been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District
Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in
favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available
in the State courts have been exhausted.
SEC. 3. RELIEF.
After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.
Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.
SEC. 6.
NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide, or(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.
SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.
Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.
SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.
Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.
SEC. 9.
SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.
It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care.

This Act was signed into law on the 21st March 2005 by President Bush. You may find the source text on Findlaw an excellent source of US law, over here: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/schiavo/bill31905.html

The technique of the “personal” act was very criticized and somewhat ridiculed around the world. The technique might be criticized, since it means an interference from the legislative branch into the judicial in a country which was based on the principle of checks and balances. However, taking into account that “checks and balances” also means counter-balancing negative evolutions, and that much of the debate is made of symbols, in my opinion, any technique, however criticizable, may be used as long as it is for the Common Good.

Reactions in Europe have been rather supportive of... the husband. A continent where two countries have already legalized euthanasia, newspapers, according to their sensibilities have been either reticent to the intervention of Congress in a judicial case, or even supportive of “putting an end to the sufferings” of Mrs. Schiavo. As an example you may read the article of Eric Fottorino over here (French): La mort sans douceur . Now a word of caution for those who follow my links to Le Monde: the articles are available online free of charge for a limited period. Past that period, you will have to pay a fee to read those articles (or find the print edition somewhere).

As I am coming to an end of my update, I would like to point you to two sites where you may get additional information on the case of Mrs. Schiavo.

The first is the site of the parents of Mrs. Schiavo, the Schindler family. It is an excellent site, very well documented, generally up to date, and with a host of legal documents to be read in pdf format. A few links are broken, but may be accessed through other sites.

http://www.terrisfight.net/



The second site is that of Findlaw, which established a special page on the Schiavo case with a number of topics around the end of life and some legal commentaries. If you need updates on US law, I would advise readers around the world to start their researches on Findlaw.

http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/index.html

Police brutalities in Turkey

Sorry for the long absence, but there was quite a period of bad weather here. The principal news that we may call to attention was the way the Turkish police celebrated the international day of women: they forcefully dispersed a pacific demonstration of women in Istambul (see The Financial Time's account over here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/92f4bf62-8f78-11d9-af70-00000e2511c8.html. This incident took place on the very day that a troïka of European ministers went inTurkey to discuss the opening of adhesion discussions with the EU in October 2005.

This sadly illustrates that what has begun as a bid to obtain the inclusion into the EU of a country which is famous for its records of condemnation by the European Court of Human Rights for acts of torture by its police forces. The attempts of Turkey to bully its way into the EU already forespoke of what would mean the inclusion of this country into the EU: it would mean the end of the evolution towards a greater respect for human rights on the Continent.