## Facts

- Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo suffered cardiac arrest in 1990 and was left in a persistent vegetative state with no cognition or awareness and irreversible brain damage.
- Theresa had no written advance directive; her wishes about end-of-life care were asserted through oral statements recalled by witnesses.
- Michael Schiavo, Theresa’s husband and court-appointed guardian, petitioned to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration delivered by feeding tube.
- Theresa’s parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, opposed discontinuance and contested the guardian’s request.
- After an extensive evidentiary hearing with medical and lay testimony, the trial court found (1) Theresa was in a persistent vegetative state and (2) clear and convincing evidence showed she would choose to forgo the life-prolonging procedure.
- The parents appealed, challenging (among other things) alleged guardian conflict of interest, admission of social-science testimony, and the sufficiency of evidence under the clear-and-convincing standard.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court was required to appoint a guardian ad litem due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from the guardian-spouse’s potential financial benefit upon the ward’s death.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting social-science expert testimony concerning general attitudes and values about terminating life support.
3. Whether competent, substantial evidence supported the trial court’s finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the ward would choose to discontinue artificial nutrition and hydration.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order authorizing discontinuance of artificial nutrition and hydration.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to appoint a guardian ad litem based on the asserted conflict.
- Admission of the social-science testimony was not reversible error because the record did not show the trial judge relied on it in a prejudicial way.
- The finding that Theresa would refuse continued tube feeding was supported by competent, substantial evidence satisfying the clear-and-convincing standard, despite conflicting testimony.

## Legal Principles

- Before withdrawing life-prolonging procedures from an incapacitated person, the court must find clear and convincing evidence of the person’s own decision to refuse the treatment in the circumstances presented.
- On appeal, the reviewing court does not reweigh credibility or evidence; it asks whether competent, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s findings under the applicable burden of proof.
- A possible financial interest of a guardian does not require a guardian ad litem where the court, after adversarial proceedings, acts as the surrogate decision-maker by determining the incapacitated person’s wishes.
- Evidentiary rulings, including admission of expert testimony, are reviewed for abuse of discretion; any error is not grounds for reversal absent a showing of prejudicial effect on the decision.
- The availability of funds to continue long-term care is not determinative of whether clear and convincing evidence establishes the patient’s decision to decline treatment.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the withdrawal of tube-delivered nutrition and hydration, holding that the trial court properly acted as surrogate decision-maker and that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that the incapacitated patient would refuse continued life-prolonging treatment.


In re Guardianship of Schiavo, 780 So. 2d 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)