Replies

let me just state that as a conservative, this issue is one where my libertarian side is more prevalent, I don't believe the government should be interfering with this kind of thing beyond the scope of the law as it exists, and my understanding is that the spouse has the right to make these kinds of decisions, and a variety of courts and judges KEEP COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION!

if you don't like the law, go and change it for EVERYONE then, not on a piecemeal basis, not on a case by case basis or you are encouraging chaos

the reality is spouses and families make these kinds of decisions everyday and no one interferes....I am beginning to suspect this poor woman and her family are being used as political footballs...

and before you start railing on me, reverse the situation here

what if this were a Democratic Senate or House that was interfering with the decisions of judges, even right leaning judges if you will, who were making decisions based on the current legislation and caselaw huh, you name the issue, think about it real hard.....

if you allow the Senate and House to interfere with judicial decisions like this, you are setting a dangerous precedent that could backfire on Republicans themselves...

the Republicans would be up in arms, you can bet your bippy...

sorry for once I agree, this is governmental interference that is wrong and the judge was right to say so

what if this were a Democratic Senate or House that was interfering with the decisions of judges, even right leaning judges if you will, who were making decisions based on the current legislation and caselaw huh, you name the issue, think about it real hard.....

The rightness of the cause - life - is of course of primary importance.

But if the shoe were on the other foot, I would fully expect the Democrats to do the same thing full tilt.

The Democrats already did the "nuclear option" in the Senate in 1975 for example. After the Dixiecrat split had healed, which had been protected by a 67-vote cloture rule, the Democrats lowered the threshold to 60 votes as a bulwark against Republicans who often had 34 votes for filibusters but not 40.

The argument that if we don't do it, the Dems will show the same restraint is as misplaced now as it was in the Cold War dealing with the Russians.

THe problem is that this woman does not have independent council. The spouse should have the right to decide EXCEPT if evidence exists that he has a conflict of interest OR does not have the patient's interest at heart. The fact that once the money came in, the husband stopped the rehabilitation should trigger his dismissal as her guardian. I don't blame him for getting on with his life, but the law of Florida says that there has to be clear and convincing evidence that she would not want to live this way...and the facts don't bear that out. As a devout Catholic AND other witnesses saying that she had indicated the opposite belief has NOT been accepted by this judge, Why not have a swallow test for her? Swallow therapy? She is OBVIOUSLY not in a PVS. To starve an animal in this way would land a person in jail. It's heartless and cruel.

"and my understanding is that the spouse has the right to make these kinds of decisions"

Nope!

Only the person who would be affected has that right.

In this case it's Terri, but since she cannot speak for herself than the court must appoint an 'independent' guardian to speak for her.

Only proof of whether 'she' has actually stated that she does not wish to continue on life support, either by credible witnesses or a living will, would be the only arbitor of the decision.

Michael brought the lawsuit on 'behalf' of Terri. As her 'executor' of her will, not as a right to decide on her behalf or final decision.

The law is very clear about who has the right to live or die.

And it's not Michael.

"let me just state that as a conservative, this issue is one where my libertarian side is more prevalent, I don't believe the government should be interfering with this kind of thing beyond the scope of the law as it exists, and my understanding is that the spouse has the right to make these kinds of decisions, and a variety of courts and judges KEEP COMING TO THAT CONCLUSION! "

I would agree with you that in these instances, I am usually more 'libertarian' in my views...but not in this case.

This lady requires NO heroic measures to remain alive, and there is NO written records of her expressed desires and a point of contention as to what her views were/are.

All they are doing to this lady right now is feeding her, and no matter how many times the media states otherwise, feeding has never been considered "life support".

sorry for once I agree, this is governmental interference that is wrong and the judge was right to say so

Hey there Einstein, let me ask you this simple multiple choice question, and see if you can answer it correctly:

A STATE OR FEDERAL "JUDGE" IS A REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT SORT OF ORGANIZATION?
A) Big Oil.
B) A non-profit charity.
C) talk radio station
D) Dry Cleaners of America
E) THE GOVERNMENT

When a Florida state JUDGE orders someone to DIE by starvation who is not a criminal, and who is not even a threat to society, then isn't that POSSIBLY an example of the GOVERNMENT intruding into someone's life, and in this particular case they are intruding to have the person KILLED????

Does this sound like a banner issue for libertarianism to you? Are you all for JUDGES telling us whether we can live or die? Is that the sort of libertarian utopia that makes your little heart go pitter-patter?

My goodness, the STUPID level on Free Republic is reaching an all time high regarding this subject...