Michigan bill would ban medical decisions if adultery is involved

AP ^ | 3/22/2005 | Amy F. Bailey

[Crackingham]

A Michigan lawmaker is working on legislation that would prohibit a spouse having an affair from denying food, fluids or medical treatment to a wife or husband who cannot make such decisions.

Rep. Joel Sheltrown on Tuesday said he wants to avoid a situation similar to Terri Schiavo's.

snip

Sheltrown, a Democrat from West Branch, said Michigan should strengthen its protections before a similar situation happens here.

"While people, in happier times, may trust their spouses to make future medical decisions for them, situations change," Sheltrown said in a statement. "In a situation where an incapacitated patient lives at the mercy of an adulterous spouse, it is in the patient's interest to make a presumption in favor of life."

Michigan law already prohibits the denial of life-sustaining treatment, such as food and water, unless the patient has expressed that such action be taken, said Sheltrown, who expects to introduce the bill in about three weeks.

[Just mythoughts]

"The lawyers and judges noted, for the record, just what that last paragraph says. MS did not HAVE to handle it the way he did. If you don't like that or believe it, take it up with the attorneys and judges, not with me.

And you are saying the Schindlers did not have adequate legal representation? Now, whose fault is that? Certainly not anyone's fault but their own. Are they or are they not able to hire any attorney they wish?"


These words are flattery to Mike, who based upon legal counsel appeared to throw himself on the mercy of the court to decide. Yet Mike provided the needed evidence, because of the absence of a living will, to gain the very thing he sought.

Mike gets the money to take care of his wife, thus a better lawyer and you point fingers at them about not affording better counsel.

The case itself demonstrates that their counsel was inferior, or the case was rigged to begin with. Yet the gal is the one who DIES.

[Cboldt]

I wanted to put this on a few threads so I'll put this here; that last paragraph is the most important.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt

Thanks for that. I am reproducing the last paragraph here. I have some problems with the question as posed by the appellate court. It presumes too much about the factors that Terri might consider (e.g., expecting a miracle to recreate her brain); and I think makes a leap by counting forced starvation as "a natural death process." We don't know if that is the calculus that would have weighed on the patient's mind, even after ten years of PVS.

In the final analysis, the difficult question that faced the trial court was whether Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo, not after a few weeks in a coma, but after ten years in a persistent vegetative state that has robbed her of most of her cerebrum and all but the most instinctive of neurological functions, with no hope of a medical cure but with sufficient money and strength of body to live indefinitely, would choose to continue the constant nursing care and the supporting tubes in hopes that a miracle would somehow recreate her missing brain tissue, or whether she would wish to permit a natural death process to take its course and for her family members and loved ones to be free to continue their lives. After due consideration, we conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this question as he did.

[Peach]

Yet another Huh?

I didn't point fingers at not being able to afford counsel. I have no clue about the Schindlers financial situation.

What I said was, if they hired a bad attorney, that's not anybody's fault but their own.

[ContraryMary]

Well, then Hillary certainly wouldn't have to worry about Bill offing her.

[Just mythoughts]

"What I said was, if they hired a bad attorney, that's not anybody's fault but their own."

How would one know they hired a bad attorney until the case was over?

In this case it was a death sentence.

[maine-iac7]

Second carbonated sinus wash of the day

[mabelkitty]

How stupid.
You either have a living will or you don't.

[HitmanLV]

No, that's the question.

Why does adultery of either party necessarily mean that they can't make a sound medical decision for their spouse.

It doesn't mean that it can, either.

So for example, if a man had a quick fling at the Christmas party, that might make him an adulterer, but that doesn't mean he should necessarily be disqualified from making a decision for his terminally ill wife 4 months later.

It works the other way - say a married woman who got regular sex from the pool guy is injured, and her husband didn't know about it - does the fact that she was adulterous mean that somehow his judgment call can be undermined?

What's so confusing about the question - the fact that someone had an adulterous fling doesn't necessarily mean their legal judgment call is going to be a bad one.

Then again, the more extended and extreme an extramarital relationship is, the more it could logically question a spouse's judgment call.

But that doesn't mean a woman who succumbed to temptation once should have her legal judgment call undermined, in itself. And in that case, whose call will it be?

[Peach]

Oh, so you don't know it's a bad attorney until you lose a case? Do you understand that even good attorneys lose cases and that sometimes it's the case that's bad and never should have been brought?

[maine-iac7]

Problem is, if nature had its way, Terri would have been dead 15 years ago. The machines aren't natural at all and people can now live indefinitely, on machines. Which cost the earth.

well, then there now - Terri was not, is not "on machines" - she was not on life support, not comatose, not in a PVS - etc - only a feeding tube - and only that because her husband-in-name-only refused to let them feed her by mouth - and there are nurses who have signed affidavits that she could be -

But how can you create the illusion that someone is on life support if they are not, at least, on 'something -

the feeding tube is only hooked up for a few minutes a day to deliver the nutrients...

that is not "life support"

(and, oh, Peach-y, don't bother to answer me. It's obvious you are for euthanasia - so no sense conversing with you - I only commented on you remarks for others to read)

[maine-iac7]

Remember Scott Peterson? At the rate we're going, in 50 years what he did will be legal.

Right - after all, his wife and a coming child were inconvenient - in the way.

[Just mythoughts]

"Oh, so you don't know it's a bad attorney until you lose a case? Do you understand that even good attorneys lose cases and that sometimes it's the case that's bad and never should have been brought?"


No I had no idea good attorneys lose cases. (sarcasm)

In some cases there are BAD judges.

[Peach]

Oh, lots of bad judges.

And now with Congress getting involved with what used to be settled by families and doctors, we are going to see more of these cases.

And we will need a LOT more judges. That is NOT a good thing.

[G Larry]

Shouldn't Florida have a simialr law regarding spouses who attempt to murder the spouse in question?

[maine-iac7]

Just pass a law that no one in the United States is allowed to die and get it over with.

great solution - well, maybe we could make an exception in your case...

[joesbucks]

I believe the tube and/or the device that enters her stomach are permanently attached. The tube from the nutrient back is affixed temporarily to the device permanently installed in her stomach.

[Peach]

Oh, no. Let me answer.

You seem unaware that Florida law considers feeding tubes to be part of what they call life saving equipment.

And not just Florida either, btw.

If you don't like the law, may I suggest you work to change it.

[marajade]

Have you read the facts of the case? Terri cannot medically take food and water if she had tried she might choke to death.

[Just mythoughts]

"Oh, lots of bad judges.

And now with Congress getting involved with what used to be settled by families and doctors, we are going to see more of these cases.

And we will need a LOT more judges. That is NOT a good thing."


This is another area of disagreement. Congress is the one who set up all these courts and Congress is the one who allowed things to get out of control.

Allowing this judge to make a life and death decision was never what the Constitution intended or allowed.

[SURI]

Outstanding. Clearly there is a "conflict of interest" at hand.

Som,eone should assist Terri to get divorced before she starves to death.