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

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

[TaxRelief]

Flip Benham did stop in by bus with a few kids.

[Mare]

Thanks for the ping, WW. Very moving and appropriate article.

I checked out your link about your friend Matthew--do you still see him? We sure had some great discussions back then, didn't we?

Regards.

[Cicero]

If I were sure that Terri had said she wanted to die, then I would deplore her decision and say it was wrong, but I would not deny her legal right to do so.

But there are several problems in this case. Most important, we have only the husband's word that she wanted to die, and he is not necessarily to be trusted. Second, there's a big difference between being taken off life support and being starved to death. Most doctors would make a distinction.

Another problem is that the abortion issue looms behind this case. The right to day is tied into the right to abort, and liberal judges are VERY reluctant to give an inch on these issues.

Finally, you say that the legislature has no right to go against the courts. That's just not true. The constitution--state and federal--has a balance of powers. Activist judges in recent years have overstepped the bounds, but that doesn't mean that executives and legislatures no longer have any constitutional rights to change or to execute the law as they think best.

[Saundra Duffy]

The reaction to the passing of Leo the dog on a California freeway carried more outrage than this court-ordered starvation death of a woman who clearly responds to her mother.

Remember all the people weeping and wailing over Leo the dog? But when it comes to the starvation death of a living breathing innocent HUMAN BEING, they think that's okie dokie. Truly amazing.

[thepizzalady]

"The ONLY people that know what Terri's wishes were are her, husband, and her maker."

Correct! And her husband may not be completely truthful about his knowledge in this matter.
So if Terri didn't say that, or did say it and changed her mind, than her husband would be mistaken about her wishes.

So that leaves the will of her Maker. And the will of her Maker supersedes the laws of man. You speak of laws, and hypocrisy. Terri's life is in the hand of her Maker. And since He has chosen not to take her life at this time so she lives.In other words, if either a judge OR her husband want her dead before her time to die, that constitutes MURDER.

Which law is that again which gives a judge(a fallible man) the right to take the life of another human being? Without cause? Because one other person is done with her? Who may have other motives to lie? And he is the only reason it is even in a court of law? Even though she has a family who wants to care for her? When she's committed no crime?



Speaking of murder, even a murderer is not sentenced to die by the order of a judge without due process. Even then, years of appeals must be exhausted before the sentence is carried out. Terri hasn't even committed any crime. This matter is only before a judge because her husband's attorney placed it there. And you talk about hypocrisy. Nothing personal, but your logic has no locic.

[TaxRelief]

Could it be that Terri's situation has uncovered a, hitherto, unrecognized flaw in Florida law regarding this issue?

I believe you have hit the nail on the head.

[William Wallace]

Thank you kindly, Explorer.

[TaxRelief]

The right-to-die can not be distorted into the right-to-force-someone-else to die.

[AbsoluteJustice]

"if congress had passed a law freeing any slaves who escaped instead of a constitutional amendment outlawing slavery, would it have been unconstitutional because Dred Scott had already been decided?"

No it would not be unconstitutional. The Dred Scott case/ and following law was not passed hastily after a court decision was rendered to overturn a court decision that was seen as unpopular. This was unprecendented in that the legislature hastily passed a law overturning 10 years of legal battle circumventing the checks and balances process. This is what I deem as unconstitutional IMO.

I would like Chancellor to weigh in on this as he is of higher authority than I with legal matters. TY for calling me on this.

[Prince Charles]

Death row inmates get more time, appeals and reprieves than these innocents.

Indeed! If the Left is allowed to murder Terri, then it's just a short leap of logic before they begin clamoring to "put down" Alzheimer's patients, terminal cancer patients, and on from there. Shades of Nazi Germany and Hitler's satanic schemes to get rid of "undesirables."

[AbsoluteJustice]

"Which law is that again which gives a judge(a fallible man) the right to take the life of another human being? Without cause? Because one other person is done with her?"

It is not murder

Title XLIV
CIVIL RIGHTS
Chapter 765
HEALTH CARE ADVANCE DIRECTIVES
View Entire Chapter

765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--

(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures
from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II
unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of
life-prolonging procedures.

(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be
satisfied that:

(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the
right could be exercised by the patient.

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

[Diamond]

Thank you for your response.

That is not the discussion and would be very flimsy in court. 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.

Your assertion is refuted by the thrust of the very moral, and the very accurate legal/historical statement in the article:

"Courts have labored mightily in the vineyards of greedy relatives, diabolical murderers and petty friends for over 500 years to develop will and probate laws that avoid such he said/she said contentions when there are no written documents from decedents who can no longer speak.

Written proof, not assertions by those who have financial conflicts of interest, determines intent. This willy-nilly legal framework for taking the life of one who has not reduced such a desire to writing mocks the law's demands for caution and morality's edicts on the sanctity of human life.

As well as the lack of written proof of her intentions, there is other statutory, constitutional and case law that is operative also, as has been delineated on many of these threads. The law is to be interpreted as a whole, not just isolated parts of it. That's why I asked you the question of the overall purpose of law in the first place. You did not answer that question.

And yes, this case is a case of court-sanctioned attempted killing of an innocent person. She is a disabled person who was not terminally ill, or dying, or anything of the kind, at least until they removed her nutrition and hydration in their attempt to kill her. I don't know how else to say this, but your use of loaded terms such as "vegetative" and "non-congnitive" indicates that the vast amount of factual information about this adulterous man and his intentions, the conduct of his guardianship, and the actual condition of his unfortunate wife that resulted from his neglect and abuse that has appeared on these threads has still not made much of an impression upon your mind, just as it apparently made no impression on a corrupt and/or incompentent judge and/or judicial system.

Cordially,

[TaxRelief]

This was unprecendented in that the legislature hastily passed a law overturning 10 years of legal battle.

This is correct: It would have been far better if they had hastily impeached those involved who were corrupt. Unfortunately, that might have taken too long given that an innocent life was on the brink of death.

Truely, the entire situation can be seen as a comedy of errors.

[Diamond]

a health care surrogate designated by the patient

The key phrase here is "DESIGNATED BY THE PATIENT". Tell us, please; when did Shiavo first suddenly 'remember' that his wife had made such a 'designation'? What does the public record show?

Cordially,

[MrConfettiMan]

Thank you for pointing me to WW's exceptional post, Exp89. I agree, it was a very inspiring read.

The pastor who married my wife and I recommended another book written by Henri Nouwen, Our Greatest Gift, A Meditation On Dying and Caring, after I was diagnosed with cancer. I highly recommend it (4/5 stars).

[Badray]

" I do not see the courts making a hasty decision on this woman's life. But I did see that in the legislature."

To paraphrase Goldwater (IIRC):

"Haste in taking a life is not a virtue, haste in preserving life is not a vice."

[Warren_Piece]

FYI, I went to the ACLU web site, and now that I've taken a shower, I'll post what they're going to argue:

The ACLU said the unprecedented actions of Florida lawmakers and Governor Jeb Bush to undo decisions by the courts and order the reinsertion of her feeding tubes are violations of Florida’s constitutional right to privacy and an unconstitutional intrusion on judicial authority.

...The brief cites Article 2, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which prohibits one branch of government from encroaching on the duties of another branch. In this case, the judiciary issued the decision that was reversed by the legislative and executive branches. The ACLU also argues the state law violates Mrs. Schiavo’s privacy rights as guaranteed under the Florida Constitution by interfering with her right to refuse medical treatment and forcing continuation of hydration and feeding tubes against her wishes.

Well there you have it. The question of fact before the court is now : does this act violate article 2, sec 3 of the FLA constitution. Keep in mind, the act never mentions the case by name, all it does is give the govenor power to act in certain cases. Like I said, I'm no lawyer, so I don't know if it will hold up.

[MrConfettiMan]

The paster who married my wife and me... *sigh*

[xsmommy]

dang you for dragging me to this thread, william!! ; ) it was beautiful. thanks for the ping and yes, i am bawling. you snot!

[Badray]

cyn (cynic xxxxxx)

Is that you? Long time no see.