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

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

[SJackson]

The quest for utopian socialism has its twists and turns. A woman has the right to choose when it comes to the life of her unborn child. But, in the exception-ridden liberal conscience, choice regarding her own life belongs to her husband. Husbands have no say in wives' abortions, but, according to those wacky Florida courts, they have the final say on their wives' lives. In the case of 39-year-old Terri Schiavo, her husband, complete with mistress and their children, wants her starved to death. A Florida court, finally halted in its unrighteous dominion by another Bush, ordered it so. Liberals oppose the death penalty for criminals, but not for innocents.

[Badray]

"Remember courts decide if a law is unconstitutional or a decision that the legislature has made, not the other way around."

Be careful. You have been making some pretty sound arguments until now, but you are wrong with this one. The legislature can designate areas that are off limits to judicial review.

I agree with you about the haste with which some laws are rushed thru the legislature -- the PATRIOT Act comes to mind -- but this one was to PRESERVE a life. Delaying action would have brought an irreversible result. It's better to err on the side of life.

We do it for murderers, why not for the innocent?

[agrace]

Hey, nice to see you here. :) Great article, I agree.

[Budge]

You have FReep-mail.

[Warren_Piece]

Hang on a sec. I just couldn't take the ACLU's word for it. Here is the actual wording of Article 2 Sec 3 of teh florida constitution:

SECTION 3. Branches of government.--The powers of the state government shall be divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches. No person belonging to one branch shall exercise any powers appertaining to either of the other branches unless expressly provided herein.

To my layman mind that means the courts cannot make laws (hee, hee), also the legislature cannot decide court cases. I don't think Terri's law is a violation. It was a law passed by a legislature. That being said, the FL supremes (the corrupt ones) could easily argue that the law exercizes a power of the judiciary. What a mess! It's not a slam dunk either way!

[Warren_Piece]

Whoops, that should read: That being said, the FL supremes (the corrupt ones) could easily argue that the law EFFECTIVELY exercizes a power of the judiciary.

[thepizzalady]

The law you cite has only been on the books for 10 years. Terri's condition precedes the law. You state ..."The law itself speaks to the condition... The law is simple it states that ones wishes to not continue life saving measures or continual vegetative non-cognitive state then the GUARDIAN, as appointed by the courts has the decision to end such procedures. This is not a good evil argument. It is not killing as you espouse. No matter what your PERSONAL feeling sin this maater that is not the discussion. .."
It has nothing to do with MY personal feelings. Although it does concern my personal experience.


You assume the husband is truthful and had no part in bringing about the "condition". If Terri dies by court order, and some day future, her husband admits he lied, Terri is still dead.
I believe the husband may or may not be lying. And the condition existed before the law.
So, your solution is death, and my solution is life.

Believe this. Laws come and go,good laws and bad, but right is ALWAYS right, and wrong is ALways wrong. Life is fleeting, death is irreversible.

[Annie03]

"b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the
patient's physical condition is terminal."

PVS being the applicable condition in Terri's case. The problem is that there is about a 43% misdiagnosis rate in so-called PVS patients. Also, there is a new classification of "minimal consiousness" in the medical community, which is a state "above" PVS. Terri's guardian (IMO) has made sure through lack of therapy, lack of stimulation, to keep his wife as low as she can be. Why? Because he KNOWS he needs her deemed "PVS" to pull this off. So does his lawyer, who apparently helped get this legislation passed. If the judge summarily dismissed any testimony that challenged the notion that Terri is PVS, it doesn't exactly pass the smell test for appying the law fairly.

[TaxRelief]

744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.--

(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:

(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.

(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.

(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.

(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

(e) To have a qualified guardian.

(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.

(g) To be properly educated.

(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.

(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.

(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.

(k) To have access to the courts.

(l) To counsel.

(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.

(n) To notice of all proceedings related to determination of capacity and guardianship, unless the court finds the incapacitated person lacks the ability to comprehend the notice.

(2) Rights that may be removed from a person by an order determining incapacity include the right:

(a) To marry.

(b) To vote.

(c) To personally apply for government benefits.

(d) To have a driver's license.

(e) To travel.

(f) To seek or retain employment.

(3) Rights that may be removed from a person by an order determining incapacity and which may be delegated to the guardian include the right:

(a) To contract.

(b) To sue and defend lawsuits.

(c) To apply for government benefits.

(d) To manage property or to make any gift or disposition of property.

(e) To determine his or her residence.

(f) To consent to medical and mental health treatment.

(g) To make decisions about his or her social environment or other social aspects of his or her life.

(4) Without first obtaining specific authority from the court, as described in s. 744.3725, a guardian may not:

(a) Commit the ward to a facility, institution, or licensed service provider without formal placement proceeding, pursuant to chapter 393, chapter 394, or chapter 397.

(b) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance on the ward of any experimental biomedical or behavioral procedure or to the participation by the ward in any biomedical or behavioral experiment. The court may permit such performance or participation only if:

i.) It is of direct benefit to, and is intended to preserve the life of or prevent serious impairment to the mental or physical health of the ward; or

ii.) It is intended to assist the ward to develop or regain his or her abilities.

(c) Initiate a petition for dissolution of marriage for the ward.

(d) Consent on behalf of the ward to termination of the ward's parental rights.

(e) Consent on behalf of the ward to the performance of a sterilization or abortion procedure on the ward.

[TaxRelief]

The legislature can designate areas that are off limits to judicial review.

Federally this is true, but does it apply to the State of Florida?

[Graymatter]

AbsoluteJustice,

How do you feel about governors pardoning condemned criminals? Commuting death sentences? They've been through the process.

[Badray]

Ooops. My fervor may have gotten ahead of my info. Why don't you and I just decide right here and now that it does, okay? ;-)

[William Wallace]

Thanks Mare. Glad you liked the article and glad to see you're still around.

I checked out your link about your friend Matthew

You were my inspiration for writing about Matthew. I was one of about 70 volunteers who spent one hour per week caring for him. I can't say he was my friend, I'm not sure he even recognized me. He usually looked past us as if we were dim shadows from a world of hollow appearances that Buddhists call shunyata that accidentally brushed past his world of sublime joy.

The author understands what many cannot fathom. In our encounters with wounded people like Terri, Claire and Matthew, we catch glimpses of something higher than the Platonic cave of shadows we think of as reality, but is really just shunyata.

[William Wallace]

Thank you MrC. My prayers for your complete recovery.

I was fortunate to attend a talk Nouwen gave some years ago and will be sure to pick up that book.

[PleaseNoMore]

I have responded to you on other threads to refute your assertion that this has been heard by 15 or so judges. It has not. Although the case may have gone before a number of various judges these judges refused to hear the case for because of jurisdictional problems and such. This case has not, I repeat NOT, been heard by 15 or more judges.

[thepizzalady]

Sorry, but your post does not support your views. I am not an attorney, but this states the decision can be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II Did Terri designate her husband as surrogate? This is normally a legal written, signed document. Did the patient demand a RIGHT to forgo treatment? or just make a statement?

And there two(2) parts to Part II. part (a) and part (b). Without an AND or an OR between the parts, it would be interpreted by me to mean that both parts have to be met first.

I am so insistant on this thread, because I would have met the criteria. Plus I did tell my husband in front of witnesses, many times, that I would choose not to be revived or prolonged. AND signed legal Do Not Resusitate paperwork before surgery. AND was told by doctors there was no hope. And was hours from dying. I changed my mind!

[William Wallace]

and yes, i am bawling.

[xsmommy]

snot! ; )

[AbsoluteJustice]

And what do you say if this were her wishes?? Do you then say we have caused this woman suffering and it was a travesty? The courts heard evidence that they thought overwhelming enough not to believe the husband had ill intentions. I go with the courts on this one they were more privy to information concerning this case than I.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Once you are married and the Government/courts cannot assess the wishes of the patient then it defaults to the husband/wife whichever the case.

[AbsoluteJustice]

Thank you for that case law link....very interesting. We shall see.