Replies

"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.

"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.

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.

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!