A TIPS WEB QUEST

THE RIGHT TO DIE

THE

TERRI SCHIAVO CASE

By: Ms. M. Flori

ACADEMY FOR HEALTH CAREERS

SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT

The Terri Schiavo Controversy

A more modern incident causing division among Americans is the case of Terri Schiavo. Terri Schiavo (pronounced SHY-voh)¹, was an American woman from St. Petersburg, Florida, who spent the last 15 years of her life in a persistent vegetative state. Her husband's successful efforts to discontinue life support prompted a fierce essay over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights, while overcoming active counter-efforts to keep her alive.

Michael Schiavo, her husband and legal guardian, contends that he carried out his wife's wishes not to be kept alive in her vegetative state. Mrs. Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, who are both practicing Catholics, dispute Mr. Schiavo's position, as have Mrs. Schiavo's brother and sister. The courts all ruled in favor of Mr. Schiavo, and the feeding tube was removed three times. The parents vigorously appealed the decisions, leading to the reinsertion of the feeding tube the first two times. Vatican officials, U.S. President George W. Bush, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, many Republicans, and several Democrats in the Florida Legislature and U.S. Congress have sided with Mrs. Schiavo's parents. Other groups and individuals, including the American Civil Liberties Union as well as many Democratic and several Republican legislators, have expressed support for the position of Michael Schiavo.

A brief rundown of the case: On October 15, Schiavo's feeding tube was removed for the second time. On October 21, the Florida Legislature, in emergency session, passed "Terri's Law," which gave Florida Governor Jeb Bush the authority to intervene in the case. Bush immediately ordered the feeding tube reinserted.

On May 19, 2004, Florida Judge W. Douglas Baird overturned the law saying that it "summarily deprived Florida citizens of their right to privacy." Bush appealed the ruling to the Florida Supreme Court and on September 23, 2004 they reached a unanimous decisionruling that the legislative and executive branches of government unconstitutionally intervened in a judicial matter (against the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution) and that "Terri's Law" was unconstitutionally retroactive legislation. The family immediately appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 24, 2005, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Nineteen different Florida state court judges have at various times considered the Schindlers' request on appeal in six state appellate courts. Appellate courts do not reconsider evidence, but can only rule whether a trial is conducted properly; none of these courts have found legal grounds to overturn the initial ruling. ) The final ruling came on February 25, 2005 when Judge George Greer ordered the feeding tube removed on March 18, 2005.

It is now your turn to express your opinion. You have been assigned to a team of advisers to a Congressional Committee who is investigating the legalities for ending artificial means for keeping people alive. Remember, these people cannot live without these life-support systems, but can survive indefinitely using modern technology. They may not be able to speak, eat or do those activities that define life other lowest limits of the definition of a “living thing”.

1: You will prepare TWO papers of a minimum of three pages each.

2: Paper # 1 will argue AGAINST ending the life of Terry Schiavo but removing life-support

3: Paper # 2 will argue FOR the ending of life-support for terry Schiavo and, for all intents, ending her life.

4: You will use the FOUR-STEP AMERICAN HISTORY PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST to write your papers.

You will use the categories of the AHPPA to construct your analysis. This will be described in the “Process”

Section of this web quest.

5: You will then be assigned a side of the case to argue. This will take the form of an ORAL PRESENTATION as if you were presenting at the Congressional Committee in Washington. You will detail your arguments and persuade the Committee that the opposite arguments are not “Valid” in this case.

1: You will be working in teams of 5.

2: Two groups will be assigned PAPER # 1 & PAPER # 2 as described in the “TASK”.

3: In your arguments you must also include a discussion of the DIVISION OF POWERS as it relates to the Constitution and raise the issue of “under whose jurisdiction” this case resides. Who has the right to decide on this case: the State of Florida, the Federal legislature or the Supreme Court of the United States?

Your essay must contain the following:

· All information presented in the essay must be clear, accurate and thorough.

· You must address counter arguments presented by the other side. They must be accurate, relevant and strong.

· You must present your points supported by several relevant facts, statistics and/or examples.

· Your organization must be clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.

· Your essay must demonstrate that your team understood the topic in-depth.

4: You will use the Internet Resources and printed text to complete your research. You will complete the American History Public Policy Analyst to analyze the case and prepare your papers. Use the AHPPA as a Template for your presentation.

5: THE FOUR-STEP AMERICCAN HISTORY PUBLIC POLICY ANALYST

Read the web pages on this links below. Then click on the “worksheets” and complete them using the research material you have found

STEP #1: IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM

STEP # 2: GATHER THE EVIDENCE

STEP # 3: DETERMINE THE CAUSES

STEP # 4: EVALUATE THE POLICY

6: Your groups will be assigned a side to argue after all papers are submitted. You will then come together in your groups and outline the oral presentation. You may use visuals, power points, charts, graphs etc. to clearly establish your point of view. Remember to counter all arguments that your opposition may use.

You should use the following websites to gather information for your paper. You may also use your own websites.

· http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Shiavo (ALL UNDERLINED PORTIONS OF TERRI SHIAVO INFORMATION ARE HYPERLINKED)

· http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/4371497.stm

· EYE WITNESS ACCOUNT

· FEEDING TUBE REMOVED

· HISTORY, ISSUES AND OPINIONS

· NEWSPAPER ARTICLE-HISTORY

· TIMELINE

· THE BATTLE CONTINUES

· CONGRESS INTERVENES

· SUPREME COURT DECISION

GENERAL WEB SITES

https://www.google.com

https://www.google.com

http://www.altavista.com

RUBRIC FOR

PAPERS # 1& #2

CATEGORY	4 EXCELLENT	3 VERY GOOD	2 SATISFACTORY	1 UNSATISFACTORY
Information	All information presented in the essay was clear, accurate and thorough.	Most information presented in the essay was clear, accurate and thorough.	Most information presented in the essay was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough.	Information had several inaccuracies OR was usually not clear.
Rebuttal	All counter-arguments were	Most counter-arguments were accurate, relevant, and strong.	Most counter-arguments were accurate and relevant, but several were weak.	Counter-arguments were not accurate and/or relevant
Use of Facts/ Statistics	Every major point was well supported with several relevant facts, statistics and/or examples.	Every major point was adequately supported with relevant facts, statistics and/or examples.	Every major point was supported with facts, statistics and/or examples, but the relevance of some was questionable.	Every point was not supported.
Organization	All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.	Most arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.	All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) but the organization was sometimes not clear or logical.	Arguments were not clearly tied to an idea (premise).
Understanding of Topic	The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and convincingly.	The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease.	The team seemed to understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease.	The team did not show an adequate understanding of the topic.

RUBRIC FOR ORAL REPORT

Class Debate: SCHIAVO CASE

---

Teacher Name: Ms. Flori

Student Name:     ________________________________________

CATEGORY	4 EXCELLENT	3 VERY GOOD	2 SATISFACTORY	1 NOT ACCEPTABLE
Information	All information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough.	Most information presented in the debate was clear, accurate and thorough.	Most information presented in the debate was clear and accurate, but was not usually thorough.	Information had several inaccuracies OR was usually not clear.
Rebuttal	All counter-arguments were accurate, relevant and strong.	Most counter-arguments were accurate, relevant, and strong.	Most counter-arguments were accurate and relevant, but several were weak.	Counter-arguments were not accurate and/or relevant
Presentation Style	Team consistently used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.	Team usually used gestures, eye contact, tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.	Team sometimes used gestures, eye contact, and tone of voice and a level of enthusiasm in a way that kept the attention of the audience.	One or more members of the team had a presentation style that did not keep the attention of the audience.
Organization	All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.	Most arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) and organized in a tight, logical fashion.	All arguments were clearly tied to an idea (premise) but the organization was sometimes not clear or logical.	Arguments were not clearly tied to an idea (premise).
Understanding of Topic	The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information forcefully and convincingly.	The team clearly understood the topic in-depth and presented their information with ease.	The team seemed to understand the main points of the topic and presented those with ease.	The team did not show an adequate understanding of the topic.

You should have learned from this web quest that, issues, in a democratic society, may not be easily answered. There are many complexities involved, especially in this area of life and death. There is also a testing of the definition of life itself in this case. Should a person, who is terminally ill, have the right to end their life or is this a violation of law. Moreover, is it morally right to “pull the plug” on life at any stage? Who is to decide this issue? Should the federal or state government be involved? Should the United States courts decide? How much should the government become involved in one’s life? Can family members decide the fate of a loved one in the absence of a living will? All these are critical questions that are being debated at this very moment. There are religious, medical and personal opinions that are all valid yet all are different. You now realize the importance of the Public Policy Analyst in a democratic society. It is this individual's job to clarify issues and find solutions. By studying the past, as you have done in this web quest, you can find solutions to future issues.

THANKS FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION!!!

SOCIAL STUDIES

Standard 1 - History of the United States and New York -+

Students will use a variety of intellectual skills to demonstrate their understanding of major ideas, eras, themes, developments, and turning points in the history of the United States and New York.

Key Idea 1

The study of New York State and United States history requires an analysis of the development of American culture, its diversity and multicultural context, and the ways people are unified by many values, practices, and traditions.

Key Idea 1 - Alternate

Students will study family, neighborhood, community, New York State and United States history, culture, values, beliefs and traditions and the important contribution of individuals and groups.

Key Idea 2

Important ideas, social and cultural values, beliefs, and traditions from New York State and United States history illustrate the connections and interactions of people and events across time and from a variety of perspectives.

Key Idea 3

Study about the major social, political, economic, cultural, and religious developments in New York State and United States history involves learning about the important roles and contributions of individuals and groups.

Key Idea 4

The skills of historical analysis include the ability to: explain the significance of historical evidence; weigh the importance, reliability, and validity of evidence; understand the concept of multiple causation; understand the importance of changing and competing interpretations of different historical developments.

Standard 5 - Civics, Citizenship, and Government

Students will use a variety of intellectual skills to demonstrate their understanding of the necessity for establishing governments; the governmental system of the U.S. and other nations; the United States Constitution; the basic civic values of American constitutional democracy; and the roles, rights, and responsibilities of citizenship, including avenues of participation.

Key Idea 1

The study of civics, citizenship, and government involves learning about political systems; the purposes of government and civic life; and the differing assumptions held by people across time and place regarding power, authority, and governance, and law. (Adapted from The National Standards for Civics and Government, 1994).

Key Idea 1 - Alternate

Students will study government, civic life and values and citizenship.

Key Idea 2

The state and federal governments established by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of New York embody basic civic values (such as justice, honesty, self-discipline, due process, equality, majority rule with respect for minority rights, and respect for self, others, and property), principles, and practices and establish a system of shared and limited government. (Adapted from The National Standards for Civics and Government, 1994).

Key Idea 3

Central to civics and citizenship is an understanding of the roles of the citizen within the American constitutional democracy, and the scope and limitations of a citizen's rights and responsibilities.

Key Idea 4

The study of civics and citizenship requires the ability to probe ideas and assumptions, ask and answer analytical questions, take a skeptical attitude toward questionable arguments, evaluate evidence, formulate rational conclusions, and develop and refine participatory skills.

This WebQuest also addresses the following English Language Arts Standards:

E4 Conventions, Grammar, and Usage of the English Language

E4a Independently and habitually demonstrate an understanding of the rules of the English
language in written and oral work.

E4b Analyze and subsequently revise work to improve its clarity and effectiveness

E6 Public Documents

E6a Critique public documents with an eye to strategies common in public discourse.

E6b Produce public documents.

WEB QUEST ADDENDUM

We can understand the present by studying the past. Let us look at a similar controversy we have studied in American History: The Franklin Roosevelt New deal Era in American History.

THE NEW DEAL

The New Deal, with the exception of the Civil War, is one event in America that provokes intense partisan feelings. On one hand, some historians bemoaned that the New Deal was an old story "of might have beens." On the other hand, others praised the New Deal as revolutionary.

Americans have a tradition dating back to pre-Jeffersonian times that believed in the rights of “Life, Liberty & the pursuit of Happiness”. However, Americans traditionally value self-help, individual liberty, localism and business orientated individualism. At times, FDR’S New Deal Legislation conflicted with American’s interests.

For example: The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933, angered many individual farmers, who showed their displeasure in a variety of fashions. Newspapers tell a story of resentment over governmental interference in private farm ventures. Thousands of American farmers— certainly those in Illinois and the Midwest-took a vocal stand against the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. Hundreds of those disgruntled farmers wrote to the Corn Belt Liberty League headquarters to applaud its stand against the AAA and to ask how they, too, could get actively involved in the fight to rid the nation of the hated new legislation.

Tilden Burg was a politically minded tenant farmer at the time, but not really a public speaker, and certainly not a rebel. Years later, his daughter said, he was "just a dirt farmer" who believed he should have the freedom to farm as he pleased. He and the other league founders rented an office in the Illinois Theater Building in Macomb where they processed a flood of two-dollar membership fees from farmers who had read about the newly organized league in faraway newspapers. A whirlwind of meetings in other Illinois towns and neighboring states was scheduled.

While league founders planned organizational meetings, local, state, and national news reporters interviewed them for feature stories. Letters poured into the Macomb headquarters. Individual farmers joined the fight against the AAA in their own ways. In eastern Illinois, for example, a farmer was fined in court after striking the chairman of the county farm bureau of the AAA. The farmer was riled because his acreage allotment turned out to be only fifty-six acres of corn on his six-hundred-acre farm. His neighbor was allowed the same quota for one hundred and sixty acres. The Chicago Daily Tribune picked up the story about the punching incident, and someone sent the farmer a five-dollar bill with the note from its sender, "Take these five dollars for your trouble and go hit him again for me."

Closely tied in with the labor relations reform during FDR’S New Deal was a series of social reforms that climaxed with the Social Security Act (1935). It was ground breaking as it was the first national system of old-age system pensions and initiated a federal-state program of unemployment insurance. If such measures did not benefit more than one third of the nation, it was at least a beginning. The herald of the welfare state signaled a break from the Jeffersonian tradition of guaranteeing conditions of happiness. Instead, Roosevelt believed in establishing the conditions as well as achieving the greater happiness for the greater number. This in turn meant that welfare was a responsibility of the government.