| Author |
Message |
    
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1493
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 10:21 am: | 
|
Dahlia Lithwick dealt with this argument very nicely in Slate.
First of all, the law is designed so that the final decision is assigned to one person among the stakeholders in the family. If the stakeholders disagree, the only role of the courts should be to determine who the final decisionmaker should be.
Second, the spouse is preferred over the parents because a person chooses their spouse and is presumed by the law to have made a responsible choice that reflects their values and interests. Other stakeholders may argue before the courts that they would be better final decision makers. However, they must prove that this is so.
In the Schiavo case, the husband was acting responsibily on the advice of medical professionals acceptable to all the stakeholders (i.e. appointed by the court).
The recent statements by Schiavo's parents on cremation versus burial suggest that their real motives are religious self-expression and dislike of her chosen husband.
|
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 44
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:53 am: |
|
Is a spouse still a spouse after he has a new wife and kids?
And was the monetary dispute over the fact that Michael was not spending the money on Terri's treatment as it was intended? The parents' were counting on money so they could take Terri and care for her at home.
Is no one disturbed by the fact that 30 or more medical professionals gave statements to the court claiming that Terri was responsive or at the very least should be reexamined, and the judge did not consider them?
How about the fact that the guardian would not allow new neurological exams, and the court-appointed doctor had to rely on technologically ancient x-rays along with a 40 minute observation?
Is no one disturbed by the sworn testimony of a nurse that the loving husband asked when is the bitch going to die?
How about the statement of a coworker who claimed that Terri was fighting with and was afraid of her husband? Or various people who claimed she wanted a divorce? I never mentioned abuse, except in the form of withholding of treatment, but where was the guardian when all of those bones were broken?
How about the fact that hospices are supposed to be for people with less than a year or so to live and are not set up to care for people with chronic conditions?
Or how about the fact that Terri could swallow for a time after she became brain damaged, and others like her are helped with physical therapy to swallow, but physical therapy was denied by the guardian? Guess he needed the buckets of money earmarked for her care to pay his lawyers.
How about the 30% misdiagnosis rate for persistent vegetative state?
Apparently Micael was devoted until about 30 seconds after he got the settlement intended by a jury to care for Terri for her normal life expectancy. After swearing in a court case that he intended to care for her for his entire life he had a change of heart. About 8 years into this thing, after his sworn testimony to the contrary, he, along with his brother and sister-in-law suddenly remember that she wanted to die. No one finds that slightly unbelievable? Even if the casual conversations were correctly reported, which is doubtful (we were watching tv and she said yeah it was right to pull the plug), is that clear and convincing evidence enough to divine her intention? I know plently of severely disabled people and they kind of like living, even though the vast majority of nondisabled people view them as worthless.
No one is repulsed by the guardian's order that no water by mouth was to be given?
What good would her own representation do? How about a person without a conflict of interest would be better able to objectively view and present the facts? Her last court appointed guardian recommended that the feeding tube not be removed.
I think everyone is substituting their own value judgments (I wouldn't want to live like that and besides we hate Bush and right to lifers so who cares) and turning a blind eye to the facts that are screaming this was a wrong decision. Let's hope we don't use the standard "would I want to live that way" to decide who lives or dies, or we will have to go around hitting homeless people on the head with a shovel.
And this sudden respect for the judiciary is amusing. Try to remember that the next time Scalia writes an opinion. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1741
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
Again, your argument makes no sense. The neutral decision maker is the judge. If you think for some reason that the judge had it in for Terri Schaivo then why would you think any lawyer he appoined for her would be any different. The judiciary is a deeply flawed institution in many ways, but its the only one we have for resolving these questions. You would be fine with it if the decision had gone your way.
And again many of your facts are simply wrong. She received therapy, including physical therapy, for four years. Long after doctors told her husband it was pointless. I don't know what you are talking about re ancient xrays. A CT Scan showed her brain was atrophied and filled with spinal fluid.
I assume he put her in a hospice because he wanted to take out the tube and let her die with some dignity, though her parents thwarted that.
Every expert who had actually examined her has come to the same conclusion. She is incapable of cognition. The only experts I've seee make findings to the contrary are associated with right wing religious groups or think tanks.
As for no water by mouth. I would have been appaled if someone had given water by mouth to someone who can't swallow since they would likely have either choked or drowned.
Again, I honestly don't know what Terri Schaivo would have wanted. But I've seen nothing to indicate that the process did not work the way it was supposed to, executive and legislative attempts to fiddle with the law and constitution not withstanding. |
Dave
Moderator
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5757
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:21 pm: |
|
If results of the autopsy show her neo cortex was replaced with spinal fluid, the courts' collective decision will be seen as a no brainer.
I couldn't think of a better way to phrase it |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1494
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:27 pm: |
|
No rational person expects the actors in the judicial system to be unbiased or even competent. This is why there are safeguards like grand juries, courts of appeal, separation of powers, etc., etc. It's also why judicial process should be open and why judges (surprise!) typically dislike having cameras in their courtrooms.
However, in this case, the sole function of the court would be to determine which individual should be responsible for making the final decision on giving medical treatment.
The parents appear to be religious nuts that raised a daughter with a serious eating disorder and who knows what other problems. The husband no doubt had all the flaws of men who marry such women. Maybe neither was really the best in some abstract sense.
However, unless you want a legal system that can arbitrarily declare individuals and families unable to manage their own affairs (something truly frightening), you have to accept the process as it stands.
If it helps you find a meaning in all this, you can think of her as having died for freedom. |
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 45
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 12:40 pm: |
|
If results of the autopsy show her neo cortex was replaced with spinal fluid, the courts' collective decision will be seen as a no brainer.
Funny, but not true. You can't just kill a person for being in a persistent vegetative state. You have to show by clear and convincing evidence that the person wanted to refuse extraordinary treament, like food and water.
I think Montagnard's repeated statements evincing religious bigotry demonstrate one reason why many are just fine with the involuntary starving of a disabled woman based on the word of a husband with a new wife. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1495
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:10 pm: |
|
It is not involuntary to have one's wishes carried out by one's chosen spouse.
I doubt that any of us would want a pack of religious zealots interfering with our spouses' decisions (and if you do, get that living will written damn quick!).
|
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 46
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 1:34 pm: |
|
I would have been appaled if someone had given water by mouth to someone who can't swallow since they would likely have either choked or drowned.
Yes, it would have been terrible if she choked when she was ordered to be starved to death.
And if she did swallow, what next? Maybe withhold air. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1751
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 3:20 pm: |
|
jennie:
What is your exact position:
1. Feeding tubes should never be removed.
2. Feeding tubes should only be removed if all family members agree.
3. Feeding tubes should be removed only if the patient expressed that wish in a written document.
4. The Courts made a mistake in this particular case.
5 Other.
I'd really like to know. Thank you. |
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 47
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 5:05 pm: |
|
If someone would like his own feeding tube removed, that's ok by me--assuming the person is making the decision of his own free will without undue interference, has all the information necessary to make an informed decision, and is not depressed or otherwise incapable of decision making. It doesn't make sense to prolong the suffering of a person who is failing physically and for whom imminent death is inevitable. It also doesn't make sense to keep a person alive on machines who is essentially brain dead.
I believe end of life issues are being confused with this issue. Terri was not at the end of her life nor was she suffering before she was starved. I believe this is a disablility rights issue, and a question of what duty of care we owe to people who cannot speak for themselves.
In the absence of a durable power of attorney or living will, I think we have to be very very careful when inferring the desire of another person to refuse treatment, and when there is any doubt to err on the side of life. It's easy to insert our own opinion on whether a life is worth living, but euthanasia is still illegal, and we shouldn't be in the business of deciding who lives and who dies based on the extent of their disability, or how expensive it is to treat them, or any other reason (unless we want to be Naziesque).
I think the court made its first mistake by allowing the husband to continue on as guardian after he set up house with another woman. I have no problem with husband decision making, as long as the husband doesn't have another wife who, let's face it, is his primary conflicting concern. I think the court also erred because many doubts as to the woman's intent were raised and ignored. If there was any reasonable question of her intent, she should have been allowed to live. According to the court she was not suffering, so why the rush to death? Who would be hurt by her continued painless existence? There's nothing undignified about being disabled. What's undignified is being starved.
Thanks for asking, Anon. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3040
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 5:18 pm: |
|
I think we would have to read the court proceedings very carefully in order to respond to Jennie's points. Given the quality of legal counsel available to the Schindlers, I would think that the above points and many, many more would have been argued.
I feel confident that the courts proceeded on the basis of law and precedent even though more emotionally satisfying options existed.
Now regarding this statement,
"
we shouldn't be in the business of deciding who lives and who dies based on the extent of their disability, or how expensive it is to treat them, or any other reason (unless we want to be Naziesque)."
We do this all the time as a society. We make these decisions based upon income - not explicitly, of course, but implicitly in our decisions about public healthcare and health care insurance.
|
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1742
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 8:26 pm: |
|
There is an excellent timeline of the case with links to decisions and pleadings here: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm
Everyone in this case could be accused of bias. How do we know the parent's religious beleifs did not trump what their daughter would have wanted? There is every appearance that the courts carefully reviewed the evidence before coming to the conclusion they did.
Here is a section from one of the Florida Supreme Court Decisions:
The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective
decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our
own loved ones, our own children. 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. In circumstances such as
these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to
permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about lifeprolonging
procedures. See In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990)
(affirming In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So. 2d 258, 273-74 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989));
see also § 765.401(3), Fla. Stat. (2000). It is the trial judge's duty not to make the
decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead,
the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the
ward would have made for herself. § 765.401(3). It is a thankless task, and one to be
undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the
value of life. But it is also a necessary function if all people are to be entitled to a
-11-
personalized decision about life-prolonging procedures independent of the subjective
and conflicting assessments of their friends and relatives. It may be unfortunate that
when families cannot agree, the best forum we can offer for this private, personal
decision is a public courtroom and the best decision-maker we can provide is a judge
with no prior knowledge of the ward, but the law currently provides no better solution
that adequately protects the interests of promoting the value of life. We have previously
affirmed the guardianship court's decision in this regard, and we now affirm the denial of
a motion for relief from that judgment.
At the conclusion of our first opinion, we stated:
In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the
trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not
after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a
persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her
cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological
functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient
money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose
to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting
tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her
missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a
natural death process to take its course and for her family
members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives.
After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.
Schiavo I, 780 So. 2d at 180. Nothing in these proceedings has changed this conclusion.
The extensive additional medical testimony in this record only confirms once
again the guardianship court's initial decision. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1753
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:06 pm: |
|
I don't usually post links but this seems more than appropriate:
http://www.forward.com/articles/2899 |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1754
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 2, 2005 - 11:24 pm: |
|
Ashear: Thanks for posting the excerpt from the opinion of the Florida Supreme Court. One can disagree with the decision or any decision of any Court which heard this case as one can disagree with any court decision but the attacks on the judiciary over this matter are beyond the pale.
Jennie: Thanks for answering. You believe that if there is any doubt as to what the patient would have wanted then their life should be prolonged. Others profoundly disagree and believe that prolonging the life of someone in a condition like Mrs. Schaivo's if that person would not have wanted to have her life prolonged deprives her of liberty and dignity and that therefore there must be a judicial procedure to determine what that person would have wanted. |
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 49
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 9:21 am: |
|
Everyone in this case could be accused of bias
Sorry to belabor this, but I just want to explain what I meant by conflict of interest, which is a little different than just bias.
Terri's guardian committed adultery against her.
Adultery is a grounds for divorce.
In order for Terri to get a divorce, she needs the permission of her guardian.
A divorce would have a direct negative impact on Michael. Not only would he lose control of the settlement, but he would probably be liable for alimony to contribute to Terri's care.
Therefore, he should not be in the position of granting or denying permission to get a divorce and Terri should have had a different guardian.
But perhaps more importantly is this:
Michael has announced his engagement and is anxious to marry the mother of his children.
Michael needs to be legally free to marry in order to do this.
Terri's death would directly benefit Michael in that he would be free to marry as he has expressed as his wish.
His word, and his word alone (his brother and sister-in-law have an interest to say whatever he wants) should not be the basis for a determination that Terri would want to die.
The decision says that the judge must decide based on clear and convincing evidence of intent. In this case the word of someone who stands to directly benefit from the death was the clear and convincing evidence.
|
Lucky13
Citizen
Username: Lucky13
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 9:44 am: |
|
it is vile to charge michael schiavo with "adultery." give it a rest. he waited 10 years. it is embarassing for maplewood for you to say that. newt gingrich didn't wait 10 minutes to commit adultery. i don't hear those of you who recite the foxnews' talking points saying anything about that. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3042
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 10:07 am: |
|
"
Michael has announced his engagement and is anxious to marry the mother of his children.
Michael needs to be legally free to marry in order to do this.
"
Are you serious? Here in the United States in the 21st Century, divorce is still permitted. Now, I am sure there are some who would like to overturn the freedom to divorce, but for now, the right is intact. If Michael Schiavo had wanted to wash his hands of the whole thing, he could have divorced Terri years ago.
Lucky13 - It is rather indelicate of you to refer to Newt's actions as adultery. In polite Republican circles, we refer to that as a youthful indiscretion. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3043
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 10:09 am: |
|
Jennie,
People offered to "buy" out Michael Schiavo, so I don't think he was motivated by financial interests. |
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 50
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 12:54 pm: |
|
One more thing--sorry again.
The court decision states that the judge must find the woman's intent by clear and convincing evidence, and the judge's own feelings about the case shouldn't matter. It then goes on to describe the hopelessness of the case, the delusional parents, 15 years etc, and the fact that people have to get on with their lives. Although the court claims it is the woman's intent that is important, they seem to be saying, look, it's obvious no one would want to live like that so that must be her intent. If we rely on this circular reasoning--they are so bad they must want to die--then we are in effect licensed to kill those with severe disabilities.
And that is precisely why the left wing disabilities groups stood with the right wing zealots to object. The will to live is very strong, ever if you are an inconvenience to others.
Also, the only court that looked at the facts of the case was the first court. The appellate courts looked at the rules of law that were applied. I think the facts stink. It would be nice if one other person outside of the husband's family who knew this girl, and maybe someone who knew her for more than 5 years before the incident, stepped forth to say she would absolutely want to die. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3045
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 1:02 pm: |
|
The court was not redefining the circumstances under which medical assistance could be discontinued. They were forced to decide Terri Schiavo's intentions and had no choice but to assess the credibility of her husband and family. I don't see how this case expands or grants any license to euthanize the disabled.
We already have a good solution for the severely disabled. We warehouse them in sometimes awful facilities until they die. |
tulip
Citizen
Username: Braveheart
Post Number: 2213
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 2:10 pm: |
|
Or we let doctors perform surgery on them until they die. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1768
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 2:34 pm: |
|
Or as in the case of Sun Hudson we pull the plug. |
Lucky13
Citizen
Username: Lucky13
Post Number: 68
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 3, 2005 - 5:53 pm: |
|
anon-
sun was black- the GOP's rules are different for blacks. |
teach66
Citizen
Username: Teach66
Post Number: 59
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 4, 2005 - 6:07 pm: |
|
If everything is based on the law, and legally he is her guardian, then legally he did commit adultery. Whether he waited 10 seconds or 10 years. He is still her legal guardian because they are legally married.
And he took that "right" to the umteenth extreme, i.e. pulling the plug, cremation, burying in a secret place, etc. Without any repercussion to the fact that HE broke the laws of marriage.
Yes, divorce is still permitted so we must assume then that St. Michael must have also known that Teri would never have wanted a divorce, she only wanted to die.
We live in a society where we glorify Hollywood relationships. (Brittany Spears getting married to a guy while his ex-girlfriend has just given birth to HIS second child!) These people are considered "stars"! Hopefully this whole nightmare will open the door to taking a good look at the laws concerning marriage and legal guardianship. Obvsiously marriage is no longer considered a serious legal committment unless, of course, the spouse is severly disabled.
Again, what on God's (or whoever's, whatever's) earth are we setting up for the next generation? |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3054
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 4, 2005 - 8:16 pm: |
|
Is there a law against adultery? If not, he broke no laws of marriage as a civil institution. If your religion condemns adultery, then he violated the laws of your religion, but that is not relvant to the civil institution of marriage.
Andy I take serious exception to your contention that marriage is no longer considered a serious legal commitment. If if wasn't a serious legal commitment, divorce would not be so expensive.
Now, it may be that marriage no longer represents, for many people, the moral commitment it once did. I wouldn't argue with that statement. |
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 51
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 4, 2005 - 8:50 pm: |
|
but that is not relvant to the civil institution of marriage.
It is a grounds for a civil divorce in every state. And, except in certain parts of Utah, multiple wives are not common, and are in fact against the law. |
SO Refugee
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 129
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 4, 2005 - 9:06 pm: |
|
Today, at 9:06 PM the horse was officially pronounced dead. |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 4060
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 8:46 am: |
|
jennie, that is a really ridiculous statement...
"And, except in certain parts of Utah, multiple wives are not common, and are in fact against the law."
Is the Law of Polygamy enforced within this religion and how long has this been in place?
quote:Polygamy was lived secretly in the LDS church from about 1831 to 1852. The first mormon prophet had 20-30 wives and was murdered for practicing plural marriage privately while denying it publicly.
Polygamy was lived openly from 1852 to 1890 by the LDS church in Utah. The church made a show of abandoning the practice in order to get statehood. It wasn't until the second manifesto about 20 years later that the church started excommunicating new polygamists. Since that time, the LDS church has taken a very harsh and intolerant stance against anyone who publicly admits that they practice polygamy, or claims that it should be practiced.. (Polygamy still happens among members of the LDS church, just so long as those practicing in it are discrete, but not a moment longer.)
When the church abandoned plural marriage with the second manifesto, existing polygamists were granted amnesty by the government, and were allowed by the church and the state to continue living polygamy until they died. The last practicing polygamist LDS prophet died in 1918. It is believed that the last church sanctioned polygamist died in 1976.
Whaddya say we don't perpetuate myths about the Mormons ok?? There are just as many polygamist relationships in Maine or Ireland or anywhere else as there are in Utah. Please. |
jennie
Citizen
Username: Jennie
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 8:54 am: |
|
Sorry, that was misguided attempt at a joke. I like Mormons, and shouldn't have mentioned them in the same discussion as Michael Schiavo. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 1770
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 5, 2005 - 10:57 pm: |
|
"Now, it may be that marriage no longer represents, for many people, the moral commitment it once did. I wouldn't argue with that statement."
Except perhaps for all the Gay people who are fighting so desparately for the right to marry. |
patty
Citizen
Username: Patty
Post Number: 460
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 7:26 pm: |
|
I guess it's sad this all turned into a right/left wing thing all round.
What is crucial (and this has been articulted for decades in this debate) is not lumping all who oppose the tube removal with religious 'zealots' (oh my) who would demand all sorts of death-defying treatments/surgeries, etc., for life at any cost on any level. Actually very few conservatives believe just that in this day and age anyway. Most of the debate lies on murkier ground.
And it is crucial to decide whether food and water, which a healthy person needs as well, should be considered 'medical treatment' (as opposed to daily 'maintenance' of any human) that is confused with treatment which is useless and burdensome to the patient (something only patients or advocates can decide based on the illness/injury and their desires and needs); whether the deciding factor is disability (and the judged quality of life thereof -- very very very very dangerous) versus serious/terminal illness -- an important distinction ; and whether we're talking about allowing or duplicating as natural a death as possible by letting persons die ultimately of their illness, as opposed to having them die primarily of starvation/dehydration. Again, not a little distinction. And not one for an ethically careless society to ridicule, thereby handing the high ground over to 'zealots.' Or Republicans  .
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3419
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 10:07 pm: |
|
If it's a right/left thing, why was the Senate vote unanimous in support of the legislation. And why is Sen. Harkin -- known leftist -- crafting legislation allowing for federal review of cases like this were there are disputes in the family and the patient's wishes aren't clear?
This is a societal issue -- like abortion, gay marriage, etc. You can't cut it neatly along political lines. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3084
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 10:51 pm: |
|
If Congress wants to pass a law that says that in the absence of a living will and the family is not in agreement on a course of action then decide in favor of continuing treatment, who is going to argue. If it prevents another round of national silliness like the Schiavo case, then it is worth it. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3421
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, April 7, 2005 - 11:04 pm: |
|
What do you think was the jist of what Congress passed then? It was for a review -- not of the ruling, but the facts involved in this very case -- before the plug was pulled. The courts declined and just reviewed the ruling, and not the facts. Congress is entirely within the Constitution to demand that very thing. If the government is a series of checks and balances, who checks the judiciary if not the legislature, which created the judiciary (Article 3 of the Constitution). |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 8107
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 8, 2005 - 4:44 am: |
|
I disagree. I think the Federal District Court judge reviewed the evidence in the state case before issuing his ruling. I don't think Congress has the power to vacate the Florida ruling, which is what they were attempting to do and thusly forcing a new trial in Federal court.
If you think about it, I doubt you would want a judicial system where Congress can vacate state court rulings and move juristiction to the Federal courts. This works both for and against both sides of the aisle by the way. Back in the 1960s when the courts in a number of Southern states refused to convict admitted murderers in connection with civil rights cases, moving them to the Federal judiciary would have been favored by many liberals.
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 3087
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 8, 2005 - 6:42 am: |
|
cjc,
The legislation Congress passed on the Schiavo case was a politically motivated stunt having nothing to do with some compelling social issue.
Now, Bobk raises and interesting point. We don't need the federal government usurping the role of states in ordering their own affairs. If individual states want to pass laws that clarify cases such as the Terri Schiavo case, then fine. I still don't quite understand who thinks it is their business to second guess the husband. |
ashear
Supporter
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 1758
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, April 8, 2005 - 11:22 am: |
|
CJC - you are entirely wrong about what the federal district judge did. Have you read the decision?
The district court was presented with a motion for a temporary restraining order. The federal statute did not change the standard for granting such a motion which requires, among other things, a showing that the movant is likely to succed on the merits. The claims presented to the court alleged violations of federal constitutional and statutory rights. The federal court found the the movants were not likely to succed on the merits of those claims. These claims mostly went not to the substance of the state courts decisions, but the way in which they were made. This is in keeping with most federal constitutional challenges to state court decisions since the federal protections, like due process, are procedural.
quote:This court has carefully considered the Act and is mindful of Congress' intent that Plaintiffs have an opportunity to litigate any deprivation of Theresa Schiavo's federal rights. The Court is likewise mindful of Congress' directive that a de novo determination be made "notwithstanding any prior State court determination." In resolving Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, however, the court is limited to a consideration of the constitutional and statutory deprivations alleged by Plaintiffs in their Complaint and motion. Because Plaintiffs urge due process violations are premised primarily on the procedures followed and orders entered by Judge Greer in his official capacity as the presiding judge in the dispute between Michael Schiavo and Plaintiffs, their Complaint necessarily requires a consideration of the procedural history of the state court case to determine whether there is a showing of any due process violations. On the face of these pleadings, Plaintiffs have asserted five constitutional and statutory claims. To obtain temporary injunctive relief, they must show a substantial likelihood of success on at least one claim.
Indeed the plaintiffs submitted almost no facts and argued none of them to the court, as the court ntoed in a footnote to the paragraph I just quoted.
quote:Plaintiffs have submitted affidavits of health care professionals regarding Theresa's medical status, treatment techniques and therapies which are available and their opinions regarding how and whether these treatments might improve Theresa's condition. Plaintiffs have not, however, discussed these affidavits in their papers and how they relate to the claimed constitutional deprivations.
Findlaw has many of the papers here: http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/schiavo/ |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 211
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 11, 2005 - 5:51 pm: |
|
Living Will Is The Best Revenge
By ROBERT FRIEDMAN,
St. Petersburg Times
Deputy Editor of Editorials
Published March 27, 2005
Like many of you, I have been compelled by recent events to prepare a more detailed advance directive dealing with end-of-life issues. Here's what mine says: In the event I lapse into a persistent vegetative state, I want medical authorities to resort to extraordinary means to prolong my hellish semi-existence. Fifteen years wouldn't be long enough for me.
I want my wife and my parents to compound their misery by engaging in a bitter and protracted feud that depletes their emotions and their bank accounts.
I want my wife to ruin the rest of her life by maintaining an interminable vigil at my bedside. I'd be really jealous if she waited less than a decade to start dating again or otherwise rebuilding a semblance of a normal life.
I want my case to be turned into a circus by losers and crackpots from around the country who hope to bring meaning to their empty lives by investing the same transient emotion in me that they once reserved for Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy and that little girl who got stuck in a well.
I want those crackpots to spread vicious lies about my wife.
I want to be placed in a hospice where protesters can gather to bring further grief and disruption to the lives of dozens of dying patients and families whose stories are sadder than my own.
I want the people who attach themselves to my case because of their deep devotion to the sanctity of life to make death threats against any judges, elected officials or health care professionals who disagree with them.
I want the medical geniuses and philosopher kings who populate the Florida Legislature to ignore me for more than a decade and then turn my case into a forum for weeks of politically calculated bloviation.
I want total strangers - oily politicians, maudlin news anchors, ersatz friars and all other hangers-on - to start calling me "Bobby," as if they had known me since childhood.
I'm not insisting on this as part of my directive, but it would be nice if Congress passed a "Bobby's Law" that applied only to me and ignored the medical needs of tens of millions of other Americans without adequate health coverage.
Even if the "Bobby's Law" idea doesn't work out, I want Congress - especially all those self-described conservatives who claim to believe in "less government and more freedom" - to trample on the decisions of doctors, judges and other experts who actually know something about my case. And I want members of Congress to launch into an extended debate that gives them another excuse to avoid pesky issues such as national security and the economy.
In particular, I want House Majority Leader Tom DeLay to use my case as an opportunity to divert the country's attention from the mounting political and legal troubles stemming from his slimy misbehavior.
And I want Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to make a mockery of his Harvard medical degree by misrepresenting the details of my case in ways that might give a boost to his 2008 presidential campaign.
I want Frist and the rest of the world to judge my medical condition on the basis of a snippet of dated and demeaning videotape that should have remained private.
Because I think I would retain my sense of humor even in a persistent vegetative state, I'd want President Bush - the same guy who publicly mocked Karla Faye Tucker when signing off on her death warrant as governor of Texas - to claim he was intervening in my case because it is always best "to err on the side of life."
I want the state Department of Children and Families to step in at the last moment to take responsibility for my well-being, because nothing bad could ever happen to anyone under DCF's care.
And because Gov. Jeb Bush is the smartest and most righteous human being on the face of the Earth, I want any and all of the aforementioned directives to be disregarded if the governor happens to disagree with them. If he says he knows what's best for me, I won't be in any position to argue.
|
Meandtheboys
Citizen
Username: Meandtheboys
Post Number: 619
Registered: 12-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 - 7:58 am: |
|
That's great. And soooooo on the money! |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page