Terri Schiavo: 20 years after her death, her case still shapes end-of-life debates
Terri Schiavo was a Florida woman who lived in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years.
Her husband claimed she did not want to live on life support; her family disagreed, and their battle reached the U.S. Supreme Court and even the White House.
Decades later, many Americans still lack documented end-of-life care plans.
CLEARWATER, Fla. - Twenty years have passed since the death of Terri Schiavo, the Florida wife who had been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years before her feeding tube was removed in March of 2005.
Her husband insisted that Terri told him she'd never want to be on life support. But her family disagreed.
Terri died on March 31, heading into her 14th day without food and water amid what was the final legal setback for her parents after the U.S. Supreme Court again refused to hear their plea to reinsert her feeding tube.
Terri's life and death captivated the country and fueled conversations about end-of-life care and the necessity of the documents, known as advance directives or living wills.
The backstory
Terri Schiavo was born Theresa Marie Schindler to Robert and Mary Schindler on December 3, 1963, according to terrischiavo.org. She was the first of three children the Schindlers would have.
In 1983, Terri met Michael Schiavo. The couple married a year later and later moved from Pennsylvania to Florida.
Dig deeper
In 1990, at 26 years old, Terri collapsed at her home in Florida. Paramedics responded, and she was admitted to a local hospital.
Heart attack and drug involvement were ruled out. Doctors never determined the underlying cause of her collapse but she was diagnosed with hypoxic encephalopathy – a neurological injury caused by lack of oxygen to the brain.
She was placed on a ventilator and eventually had to have a feeding tube.
Days after her feeding tube was removed, she died on March 31, 2005.
Big picture view
Terri's case divided her family and the country over the right to die and sparked end-of-life debates.
The battle went through several courts and even to the White House after her husband declared that his wife stated she did not want to ever be on life support. Her parents refuted that claim, making every effort to keep her alive.
"Schiavo was huge landmark in maintaining the rights of spouses to stop any and all medical interventions," Arthur Caplan of New York University told ABC News in 2015. "But it raised all sorts of uncomfortable questions about when it becomes acceptable to remove someone from life support, even when the law makes it clear."
A 2005 USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll showed that after Terri's death, 52% of Americans believed the feeding tube should've been removed, while 42% believed it should've remained.
Timeline
The court battle over Terri's condition, care, and preferences lasted for over a decade.
1990: Terri collapses at home on February 25. She's admitted to Northside Hospital in St. Petersburg, Florida. Doctors diagnose her with a brain injury.
1991: Terri is transferred to Sable Palms Nursing Facility in Largo, Florida, for physical rehabilitation.
1993: Terri's husband and her family become at odds over the course of her treatment. Michael's guardianship is challenged in court by Terri's family.
1998: Michael's attorney files a petition to withdraw life support.
2000: Judge George W. Greer in Pinellas-Pasco's Sixth Judicial Circuit hears the petition to withdraw life support and orders Terri's feeding tube to be removed. Terry is transferred to the Hospice of the Florida Suncoast. Terry's family tries to appeal the ruling, but the Florida Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court decline to hear the case.
2001: Terri's feeding tube is removed, but the judge issues an injunction allowing the tube to remain.
2002: A medical evidentiary trial is held where the judge ultimately rules that Terri is in a peristent vegetative state and orders the feeding tube to be removed.
2003: The Florida Legislature holds a special session and passes "Terri's Law", giving authority to then-Governor Jeb Bush to reinsert Terri's feeding tube. The law is ultimately ruled unconstitutional.
2005: The U.S. Supreme Court declines to hear the case. After more legal back-and-forth and commentary from Congress and Gov. Bush's brother, President George W. Bush, a judge rules for Terri's feeding tube to be removed. She dies nearly two weeks later.
Why you should care
Twenty years after her death, it seems that most Americans don't document how they would like to handle their own end-of-life care.
According to Hospice News, many Americans know the types of end-of-life care they wish to receive, but only 22% have documented their wishes. The outlet also reported that about 25% of those who have documented their wishes are white. African Americans represented 22%, Hispanics 21% and Asians 7%.
"Advance care planning is something that can benefit all people. Unfortunately, there is a gap between thinking about end-of-life planning and actually documenting those wishes," Dr. Joseph Shega, executive vice president and chief medical officer at VITAS, told the outlet. "I can't stress enough how valuable advance care planning is for all Americans. It allows patients to make their preferences known early and is useful as they become seriously ill and enter advanced disease stages."
The Source
The Associated Press contributed to this report. The information in this story came from a mix of sources, including historical records, court rulings, and FOX TV coverage of Terry Schiavo's case. Specific details about Schiavo's life and medical condition are cited from terrischiavo.org, while legal proceedings and public reaction are drawn from past reporting by outlets such as ABC News and USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup. The article also references expert opinions, like those from Arthur Caplan of New York University, and recent statistics on end-of-life planning from Hospice News. This story was reported from Los Angeles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Hundreds of groups push back on Trump denying lawful immigrants access to Head Start, other programs
The Trump administration's expanded ban on immigrants' access to social services, such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels, could have a 'devastating' impact on children of immigrants, including U.S. citizens, hundreds of opponents told the federal government Wednesday. A total of 372 organizations have coalesced to oppose the administration's decision to make more federally funded health and human service programs off-limits to immigrants with some form of permission to be in the country. The groups say the administration wrongly promotes the expanded restrictions as part of its efforts to target illegal immigration. The policy actually 'directly targets lawfully present immigrants' by turning early learning centers, community health centers and mental health and addiction treatment programs 'into immigration checkpoints' where providers would have to check a person's immigration status, according to the groups. 'Undocumented immigrants already are not eligible for most federally funded programs. This is another case where the administration is lying to the public,' said Adriana Cadena, director of the Protecting Immigration Families coalition, which led the organizations' opposition to restrictions to be implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As a result, the restrictions will harm millions, the groups stated in official comments filed in response to the administration's expanded restrictions, published in the Federal Register July 14. The deadline for public comment on the new restrictions was set for 11:59 p.m. Wednesday. One in 4 children in the U.S. are in a family with at least one immigrant parent. In 2023, 86% of those children were born in the U.S., making them U.S. citizens, according to Migration Policy Institute, an immigration think tank. (President Donald Trump also wants to change such birthright citizenship.) Even if a U.S. citizen child is entitled to use a program, the Trump administration's restrictions are likely to cause confusion and misunderstanding, Cadena said, because of the many children who are in families whose members have different types of immigration status. "This is going to have long-term consequences we cannot begin to grasp," she said. In response to an NBC News request for comment, the White House sent a link to a July 10 news release by HHS announcing the new restrictions. The administration said in the release that it was ensuring that public benefits were not 'diverted to subsidize illegal aliens.' 'For too long, the government has diverted hardworking Americans' tax dollars to incentivize illegal immigration,' HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., stated in the July 10 release. 'Today's action changes that — it restores integrity to federal social programs, enforces the rule of law, and protects vital resources for the American people.' Expanding the programs restricted to 'qualified' immigrants The 1996 Personal Responsibility Reconciliation Act restricted the eligibility for federal public benefits to certain 'qualified' immigrants, according to KFF, a health policy group. Qualified immigrants have been defined as those lawfully present in the U.S. and do not include people with Temporary Protected Status, those who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and others, KFF reported. The HHS has added 13 more programs to the list of programs open only to qualified immigrants. Those newly added by the administration include Head Start, some of the funding for community health centers, family planning services, child welfare prevention, kinship guardian assistance, substance abuse prevention, treatment and recovery and mental health services and the Community Services Block Grant, the groups said. The federal government has said the list is not comprehensive and more programs could be added later. The groups argue that the programs and immigrants' access to them have a larger benefit to society as a whole and that "reducing access to these vital programs will make all of our communities less healthy, less safe, less stable, less able to thrive." Restrictions on the HHS programs announced in July were to be effective immediately. Groups said little guidance has been given to providers regarding their implementation, creating confusion and having a chilling effect on people who are eligible for the programs and benefits as well as on the nonprofits, local governments and others who provide them. Several states have sued over the changes, which they said would also affect programs such as Meals on Wheels, domestic violence shelters, housing assistance and more. A lawsuit also was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and others on behalf of parent groups challenging Trump's policies on Head Start. The administration provided a 30-day comment period for the new restrictions. "We do not necessarily expect that there is a real interest from the administration to seek comment on public policy that will impact millions of people," Cadena said. "This is all about the Trump administration's governmentwide attack on immigrant families, and to dismantle the safety net system that many Americans rely on," she said.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
New York man charged with cyberstalking widow of slain UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson
A New York state man was arrested Wednesday for allegedly leaving threatening voicemails for the widow of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, hours after he was fatally shot on a Manhattan sidewalk in December. The man, Shane Daley, left Paulette Thompson profanity-laced voicemails calling her husband a "f------ capitalist pig" and declaring he died because he was "profiting off the backs of poor Americans," according to a criminal complaint in Albany federal court charging Daley with cyberstalking. "This s--- is gonna keep happening to you f------ p-----," Daley, 40, warned Paulette in one of three voicemails he left on her work phone in Minnesota the night of Dec. 4, according to an FBI affidavit. "You all deserve to f------ die and burn in hell," Daley allegedly said in another of those messages for Paulette that same night, the affidavit said. Brian Thompson was killed that morning as he was about to walk into an investor conference in a midtown Manhattan hotel. Luigi Mangione, 27, has been charged with his murder in both federal and state courts in New York. On Dec. 7, Daley left a fourth voicemail on Paulette's office work phone, according to the affidavit. Paulette is not identified by name in the affidavit. But its description of "Victim-1" makes clear she was the messages' recipient. The affidavit notes that in one of the messages, Daley mockingly quoted a public statement Paulette Thompson issued in the wake of her husband's assassination. The transcriptions of Daley's alleged voicemails also feature sexist language and refer to the Thompsons' children. Thompson's slaying generated public sympathy for his family, but also led to an outpouring of anger at U.S. health care companies, including UnitedHealthcare, which is a division of UnitedHealth Group. Daley's calls "more than callous and cold-hearted," said Christopher Raia, assistant director in charge of the FBI's New York office. "They were threatening and terrified a family already suffering following the violent death of their loved one," Raia said. The affidavit said that investigators linked Daley to the messages because his personal cellphone number was recorded by Paulette's company leaving the four voicemails and making five other calls to her work line. The FBI and other law enforcement officers on July 30 stopped Daley near his home and executed a search warrant to seize his phone, the affidavit said. The FBI agent who wrote the affidavit said that when he talked to Daley that day, he recognized his voice as the same one who left the threatening messages. "When asked, Daley initially denied placing any threatening and harassing calls," the agent wrote. But when questioned about "the December 2024 time frame, Daley asserted that he had been drinking during that period and conceded that it was possible he made such calls," the agent wrote. "Daley also informed me that he was the sole user of the ... phone." Daley, who lives in the small Saratoga County town of Galway, was set to be arraigned at 2 p.m. ET by a magistrate judge in Albany, the Justice Department said in a press release. His defense attorney, Samuel Breslin, declined to comment on the case. If convicted, Daley faces a maximum of five years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000, according to the Justice Department. Judges often deliver sentences far below the maximum penalty after taking into account factors including federal sentencing guidelines. "Daley, as alleged, gleefully welcomed this tragedy and did all that he could to increase the Thompson family's pain and suffering," said John Sarcone, the acting U.S. attorney for the Northern District of New York, in a statement Wednesday afternoon. "My office and its partners will now do all that we can to hold him accountable for this vicious and outrageous conduct," Sarcone said.
UPI
2 hours ago
- UPI
Study: Dollar store foods aren't doing harm to Americans' diets
Tufts University researchers say foods sold in discount stores like Dollar Tree, Family Dollar and Dollar General don't appear to be doing serious harm to Americans' diets. File Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Family Dollar and other dollar stores are chock full of cheap, highly processed foods -- just the sort of eats that can lead to obesity, heart disease and other health problems. But dollar store shoppers are surprisingly savvy, and the foods sold in these discount stores don't appear to be doing drastic harm to Americans' overall diets, researchers reported Aug. 11 in the Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The total number of household calories purchased at dollar stores nearly doubled between 2008 and 2020, rising from 3.4% to 6.5% of a family's food purchases. But the overall healthfulness of household food purchases has remained similar between those who shop at dollar stores and those who don't, researchers found. That's because dollar store shoppers tend to purchase more than 90% of their family's calories at other stores that offer healthier options, the research team found. "Some people seem to be going to dollar stores strategically to buy sweets and snacks, along with other packaged foods," senior researcher Sean Cash, chair of agriculture, food and environment at Tufts University in Boston, said in a news release. Dollar stores have exploded in the U.S., with the three major chains operating more than 37,000 U.S. storefronts - more than Starbucks, Walmart, Target and McDonald's combined, researchers said in background notes. These shops tend to sell packaged foods and beverages that are packed with calories but low in nutrients, researchers said. Only a small percentage carry produce or meats. To see the impact these stores have had on the American diet, researchers examined food purchases made by 180,000 households in the U.S. between 2008 and 2020. They then used U.S. Department of Agriculture tools to estimate the dietary quality of these purchases. Results showed that grocery stores do indeed offer healthier foods than those found at dollar stores, and that food bought at dollar stores tends to be lower in nutritional quality. However, shoppers tend to be shrewd when strolling the aisles of a dollar store -- particularly folks in rural areas, where the nearest grocery store could be much farther away. Households that rely on dollar stores have only modestly lower nutrition scores for their overall food purchases, researchers found. Families who bought more food at dollar stores tended to partially compensate by purchasing healthier options elsewhere, the study says. The average U.S. household is getting 55% of its non-restaurant calories from grocery stores and another 22% from club stores like Costco, researchers said. "People go to different types of stores for different reasons and the dollar store is one that people choose because of the price advantage," said lead researcher Wenhui Feng, an assistant professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts University. "There are a lot of concerns that foods on dollar store shelves are less healthy, but what's on the shelf does not equal what each household takes home," Feng added in a news release. At least 25 local governments have adopted policies restricting the expansion of dollar stores, but they might have acted prematurely, Cash said. "We need more data on the real effects of dollar stores on healthy eating, as some communities may be putting the policy cart before the horse," he said. This study was funded by the USDA and Tufts University. More information Harvard Medical School has more on healthy nutrition. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
