http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1368229/posts
881503CONCUR v. DIRECTOR, MISSOURI DEPT. OF HEALTH
No. 881503
[June 25, 1990]
Justice Scalia, concurring.
The various opinions in this case portray quite clearly the difficult, indeed agonizing, questions that are presented by the constantly increasing power of science to keep the human body alive for longer than any reasonable person would want to inhabit it. The States have begun to grapple with these problems through legislation. I am concerned, from the tenor of today's opinions, that we are poised to confuse that enterprise as successfully as we have confused the enterprise of legislating concerning abortionrequiring it to be conducted against a background of federal constitutional imperatives that are unknown because they are being newly crafted from Term to Term. That would be a great misfortune.
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicideincluding suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.
-snip-
Scalia is a traitor! Impeach that SOB now! /sarc
So you believe Mike's story about "She said she wanted to die" and have a NYTimes "Chaffee/Specter/etc.='prominent Republicans'" article and a ruling by Justice Scalia on the unrelated topic of suicide to "prove" it.
This is so much like Terri Schivo's case (except it was her parents who wanted to stop the feeding)
..In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state. The Supreme Court of Missouri held that in this case the testimony adduced at trial did not amount to clear and convincing proof of the patient's desire to have hydration and nutrition withdrawn. In so doing, it reversed a decision of the Missouri trial court which had found that the evidence "suggested" Nancy Cruzan would not have desired to continue such measures, but which had not adopted the standard of "clear and convincing evidence" enunciated by the Supreme Court. The testimony adduced at trial consisted primarily of Nancy Cruzan's statements made to a housemate about a year before her accident that she would not want to live should she face life as a "vegetable," and other observations to the same effect. The observations did not deal in terms with withdrawal of medical treatment or of hydration and nutrition. We cannot say that the Supreme Court of Missouri committed constitutional error in reaching the conclusion that it did. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri is Affirmed. United States Supreme Court Decision in Cruzan Case
"Clear and convincing evidence"
Unfortunately, what we have here is hearsay which is not a standard of court rules to determine this. Nice try.
Terri is over 18.....didn't the Supreme Court rule on this recently?
That said, it is clear that being a death lover does not require allegiance to any particular political party. Evidently advocating the death by starvation of an innocent person can be a bipartisan position, although my impression is that there are more 'Rats on the pro-death side than 'Pubs.