Posted on 03/22/2005 12:46:18 PM PST by BushFaninATL
§ 166.039. PROCEDURE WHEN PERSON HAS NOT EXECUTED OR ISSUED A DIRECTIVE AND IS INCOMPETENT OR INCAPABLE OF COMMUNICATION. (a) If an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a directive and is incompetent or otherwise mentally or physically incapable of communication, the attending physician and the patient's legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from the patient. (b) If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: (1) the patient's spouse; (2) the patient's reasonably available adult children; (3) the patient's parents; or (4) the patient's nearest living relative. (c) A treatment decision made under Subsection (a) or (b) must be based on knowledge of what the patient would desire, if known. (d) A treatment decision made under Subsection (b) must be documented in the patient's medical record and signed by the attending physician. (e) If the patient does not have a legal guardian and a person listed in Subsection (b) is not available, a treatment decision made under Subsection (b) must be concurred in by another physician who is not involved in the treatment of the patient or who is a representative of an ethics or medical committee of the health care facility in which the person is a patient. (f) The fact that an adult qualified patient has not executed or issued a directive does not create a presumption that the patient does not want a treatment decision to be made to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment. (g) A person listed in Subsection (b) who wishes to challenge a treatment decision made under this section must apply for temporary guardianship under Section 875, Texas Probate Code. The court may waive applicable fees in that proceeding
I find your screen name interesting, considering your post is taking a swipe at Pres. Bush.
-A8
Everybody makes mistakes.
-A8
thank god people can keep learning more as they go, huh
And, I don't see the logic of saying that Bush's signing of the Terri Bill is a contradiction of the Texas bill he signed. The bill passed by Congress allows a federal court to consider an appeal of the lower court decision in Terri's case, and in Terri's case alone. This is what's outrageous about this whole situation -- that Judge Greer has the final and absolute authority in this matter, and that his decisions are not subject to appeal.
This was totally refuted yesterday on National Review online.
Careful, bushfan, no one is supposed to say anything critical about Master Bush here.
Neither Congress nor Bush have a problem with the law. The problem is with the proceedures that were or were not followed in the adjudication of said law. Being that this is being heralded over at DU, it's posting is probably more appropriate their to the obtuse manner of thought
Still, the MSM will try to use this to say that "Bush is a hypocrite, and the evil Republicans are just meddling to take the nation's attention off of Bush's many failures as president." Don't let the facts get in the way. They are so predictable!
God knows what the DUers think of this controversy - I am sick enough over this to even look!
Again, for the LAST time. The law on the books in Texas was worse than the law he signed. His intention was a different law, but the Democrats in Texas would not agree to it so compromise was reached. It's an imperfect law, but better than when he came to office. The President's actions here are not contadictory.
No, Janet. Nobody is supposed to rehash an already-debunked talking point.
Medical treatment and sustenance are not the same thing.
What a Bush fan can't be critical of President Bush at anytime...? Is he infallible, funny I only thought God was.
But in regards to the Law in Texas, it has nothing to do with what is happening to Terri. These are 2 totally different circumstances.
And of course, we know that a DEMOCRAT would NEVER contradict himself, don't we?
"life-sustaining treatment" is defined further in this law as " "Life-sustaining treatment" means treatment
that, based on reasonable medical judgment, sustains the life of a patient and without which the patient will die. The term includes both life-sustaining medications and artificial life support, such as mechanical breathing machines, kidney dialysis treatment, and
artificial nutrition and hydration."
And "Artificial nutrition and hydration" means the
provision of nutrients or fluids by a tube inserted in a vein, under the skin in the subcutaneous tissues, or in the stomach
What?? I think every one of his decisions has been appealed.
"This is what's outrageous about this whole situation -- that Judge Greer has the final and absolute authority in this matter, and that his decisions are not subject to appeal."
His decisions are subject to appeal, and in fact they were appealed. The Florida appellate court affirmed Greer's initial decision, and certiorari was denied by the Florida Supreme Court. After that, there was a flurry of activity that resulted in a new trial in front of Greer with evidence by 5 medical experts. The decision in that case was that new medical treatment would make no difference, and that Terri was in a PVS. That decision was appealed, and the appellate court again upheld the trial court's decision. And again, the Florida Supreme Court denied cert. There was more activity after that, including Gov. Bush's intervention, and actions in front of a Judge Baird, and an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (they denied cert.) regarding the state court's finding that Terri's Law was unconstitutional.
In other words...it wasn't just Judge Greer...it was practically the entire Florida legal system. His decisions were appealed over and over, and were consistently upheld.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.