What I know as the mother of a "non-cognitive, vegetative state" 16-year-old

Jewish World Review ^ | Oct. 30, 2003/ | Marianne M. Jennings

[agrace]

Amen, and interesting you post them - they're my personal "inspiration to homeschool" verses. The center part actually -

For consider your calling, brethren, that there were not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble; but God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong, and the base things of the world and the despised God has chosen, the things that are not, so that He may nullify the things that are, so that no man may boast before God.

[Lion in Winter]

BTTT

[Sabatier]

Evidence had been provided in court over and over again about this womans wishes to have a living will by word of mouth.

Hearsay evidence from the husband, his brother, and sister-in-law was about it. With the family in disagreement it was the judge's discretion to decide and he went with the guardian's word. Rubberstamping a guardian's decision is routine in many courts and not necessarily an indication of any deep soul-searching on the part of the judge in weighing the "evidence".

Many people think it's not the best law which allows a guardian to take the life of his ward and benefit handsomely if he does take that life.

It's true that working through channels to change bad laws is ideal but in this case a woman's life hung in the balance. There will be plenty of time to hammer out better laws in the legislature but Terri was running out of time. Better to err on the side of her life and in the meantime the public can become part of the legislative deliberation on how to improve the law.

This reminds me of the gospel where the question was raised if it were lawful to rescue an ox from a pit on the Sabbath. Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law. That seems like a good guideline here.

[Lion in Winter]

BTTT

[Lion in Winter]

BTTT

[William Wallace]

If she is unable to FLORIDA Law dictates that that duty falls upon the husband as default.

I'm reminded of a famous case in New York involving a young man who was convicted of second-degree murder for poisoning his grandfather for the inheritance money. There was nothing in the law that said murderers couldn't inherit, and the young murderer, Elmer E. Palmer, figured the worst case scenario was he would serve a 20-year sentence before enjoying the fruits of his crime. Although the statute was silent on the question of beneficiaries murdering their testators, Justice Benjamin Cardozo decided against Palmer on the principle that no one should profit by their wrongdoing.

The facts of the Schiavo case, like those in Riggs v. Palmer, highlight the deficiencies of a positivist theory of law such as Mr. Palmer's attorneys argued in that case and that you are arguing here. A legal positivist holds that law is nothing more than the collection of rules and obligations set forth in the books. A positivist rejects the idea of moral restraints on validity of laws and would say that Justice Cardozo impermissibly exceeded his authority, either by legislating from the bench or by an unwarranted exercise of judicial discretion.

The New York law on wills in 1882 did not contemplate the possibility of a beneficiary murdering his testator either to inherit sooner or to prevent a change in the will. Similarly the law of Florida governing appointment of guardians and the legal rights and obligations of spouses did not contemplate a legal guardian with financial and other conflicts of interest acting in bad faith.

To adhere to the letter of the law in circumstances not contemplated when the law was written certainly promotes predictability of results in judicial decisions. The question is whether the object of the law is primarily to reach predictable results, as positivists would hold, or to achieve justice, as Cardozo believed.

Cardozo refused to blindly follow the letter of the law if it meant violating its spirit by creating an injustice. A legal positivist denies the existence of such a thing as a spirit of the law. He would therefore allow the murderer to inherit because the 1882 law in question made no distinction between murderers and other beneficiaries.

What a difference a generation makes. When I went to law school, my first-year classmates' reaction to this case was one of surprise. We weren't surprised that Cardozo ruled the way he did. We were surprised that Palmer and his attorney were brazen enough to argue he was entitled to inherit the estate from a relative he poisoned, and that a judge like Cardozo actually took the argument seriously instead of throwing the scoundrel and his shyster out of the courtroom.

I find myself wondering the same thing today.

[Quester]

Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law. That seems like a good guideline here.

Nice point!

[Graymatter]

>>>to pass laws to overide unpopular court decisions is overstepping your powers

To pass laws, IS the power of the legislature. Behind the law is the will of the people. There was no time to express the will of the people in this case, by recall or electoral defeat of the judges. So the people, by their representatives in the legislature, expressed their will by means of a law. Because Terri would have died soon, there was no other recourse, and the people acted via the legislature. They did not create the time constraint, the law of reality imposed that.
Nothing separates this from the governor's power to commute a sentence or pardon a condemned man, except precedent (and it's not totally unprecedented). This is a death sentence and the governor's power does not derive from the type of court (criminal or civil) or the criminal conduct of the condemned (much less the lack of it!) or the historical fact that most exercises of this power have been on behalf of criminals. And remember, the governor chose NOT to exercise that power without the express authority of the people via the legislature. The executive and the legislature have deemed that Terri should live; how do you discern balance of powers in the judiciary's insistence that she die?
And where does the law say that laws may not be passed and enforced for the benefit of one individual? (If you care to see it as such. We who are pro-Terri consider this law beneficial to us all.)
How come you don't call yourself AbsoluteLaw? ;)

[Graymatter]

Beautiful.
If you're not a judge, W W, you should be!

[William Wallace]

No matter what the "cause" if the ACLU is against something... I AM FOR IT.

That's even better than George Costanza's opposite principle. :)

[William Wallace]

Thank you kindly GM.

[thepizzalady]

..."This reminds me of the gospel where the question was raised if it were lawful to rescue an ox from a pit on the Sabbath. Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law. That seems like a good guideline here..."
A fitting word from the final Judge. Thank you

[Graymatter]

>>This reminds me of the gospel where the question was raised if it were lawful to rescue an ox from a pit on the Sabbath. Christ indicated it was better to err on the side of life over the law.

Thank you Sabatier! We are in good company :)

"The law is an ass." -- Dickens

"The law is an ox." -- Jesus

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

As the parent of a "non-cognitive, vegetative state" 16-year-old, who was, by all medical experts, not destined to live more than six months, I offer advice. Seize the opportunity to honor life, in all its forms.

This essay was beautiful.

~~~

Matthew taught me the real worth of life cannot be measured, quantified or predicted in advance. He needed help from a lot of people to live a modest life, but the time, energy and sacrifice freely given by so many perfect strangers on his behalf, he repaid it all ten times over with an astonishing capacity for love that flowed freely from his wounds.

This one was awesome.

Thank you, William.

(Hugs)

[Saundra Duffy]

Ping for 2 lawyer types.

[William Wallace]

(blush) Thanks RC! Good to see you!

[William Wallace]

Ping for 2 lawyer types.

Hey I resemble that remark. ;-)

[Samwise]

Well, if you're going to make this argument based in "Florida LAW," then it seems perfectly appropriate that the Florida Legislature has a perfect right to change "Florida LAW" when it sees fit to do so.

BUMP

[thepizzalady]

"Well, if you're going to make this argument based in "Florida LAW," then it seems perfectly appropriate that the Florida Legislature has a perfect right to change "Florida LAW" when it sees fit to do so."

BUMP

I'm afraid this just might be too logical.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Thanks for the ping, WW.