Posted on 03/23/2005 12:21:22 AM PST by peyton randolph
Well, yes, but the distinction is often murky in practice.
Dying of "old age" is almost always dying from lack of food and water.
And I absolutely agree that following person's wishes is a good thing (but remember as you struggle with solutions that you cannot consent to be murdered).
The problem is and always has been, is there a way to un-impower Michael Schiavo without un-impowering other surrogates who should be left undisturbed in the exercise of their discretion.
It's not as simple as many are making it out to be.
To the best of my knowledge, there are NO exceptions to the rule that the patient's wishes must be followed. In this case, the court found that Terri wanted this course of action. That is the only way the order can legally be carried out. The guardian did not "make the decision," he merely informed the court regarding his understanding of Terri's wishes. Others offered evidence of Terri's wishes as well. The court concluded that Terri would order her caregivers to stop feeding and watering her otherwise healthy body, if she could give the order.
In this case, a judge "decided" what Terri's wishes were, based on evidence. So your "I don't want the governemnt deciding what should be done." is already fact. If you aren't there to decide, the law will try to discern what you would do.
I wonder if an advance directive that said "I want to be fed and watered, but if I am in a PVS, please hasten my natural death by removing me from shelter and placing me in a climate below 10 degrees F" would be found ethical and legal. As a matter of fact, I would rather freeze to death than starve to death. Do I get my wish, if the choice comes down to that? Or would that be considered Dr.-assisted suicide, see e.g., Dr. Kevorkian, who is in jail for helping patients carry out their written wishes.
She's dead already. Those around here and her parent's don't understand that all that 'lives' in the Floridian hospice is a body whose autonomic functions are intact. Nothing else. No cerebral cortex, only a soup of cerebral spinal fluid. No electric impulses. No consciousness, no pain, no thought. Nothing. The individual known as Terri's been dead for fifteen years.
I hope her body's granted peace very, very soon.
The Congress never intended to 'rescue' her. They acted impotently as a means of playing a political card ahead of the 2006 mid-term elections. They want to be able to rant about 'activist judges' and a 'culture of death' and 'liberals on the bench'. Why not change current law? Why not make removal of feeding tubes more difficult? Why no act before the tube was removed rather than after? They *want* her body to die so they can use her as a political martyr, a talking point to rally the fundamentalists and pander to religious blacks. Don't believe it? Do you think for a second it's coincidence Jesse Jackson's come done on the side of keeping Terri's body artificially fed and hydrated?
we can still write to President Bush, Gov. Bush and Bill Frist. Ask then to send in marshalls to enforce those supoenas. If you haven't written or called anyone over this issue please do it NOW
email President Bush – president@whitehouse.gov
Governor Bush – jeb.bush@myflorida.com
Bill Frist - http://frist.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutSenatorFrist.ContactForm
You are right, the judge decided based on the evidence. In the best case scenario, these things never get to the courts. But Terri was young and like most of us, didn't see the need to put anything in writing. This leaves it up to her next of kin, which is Michael. He says she told him she did not want to live by artificial means. The judge beleives him. That is what the judge ordered. The rest of it is just superfluous.
The test of faith is ours to pass or fail most especially during this Easter Week.
It is as simple as this. Some people are rationalizing a decision to starve an otherwise healthy person to death. In this case, I have my doubts that the patient would wish this manner of demise.
Excuse me, I have to go floss my teeth.
I am not a lawyer and ignorant of procedural issues of law so forgive me if if this is a stupid question. Can new evidence be considered by the appeals courts?
Well, that's a nice rant only completely irrational.
They did all they could under the Constititution. IF they did as you say, send marshalls or the national guard, have you considered the consequences? You seem to think her life would then be spared. You'd be absolutely wrong.
The people are against her right to Live. They'd demand she be turned back over to Michael. They'd demand impeachment if this didn't occur. The President and many of these people would be removed during a period when we are at war, the country torn in two and Terri would be returned to Michael at the end to be killed.
That is what would happen, making vigilantism on the Part of the President, the Governor or anyone else in elected power meaningless.
Oh please, enough is enough. Would you trust your husband if he had a new girlfriend and two kids with drool runnning down the corner of his mouth every time he thinks of you dead and a million bucks in his pocket?
If the courts go insane -- they have gone insane -- many follow due to the awful burden of insane rulings. Would you call gravity an "excuse"? Just as gravity makes things fall -- an insane judiciary makes for a general insanity in all affairs.
generally no.
Appeal courts only look for mistakes of law.
It also was an abuse of discretion test in this case. The lowest standard for the trial judge.
The courts have generally been "legally" correct on appeal.
I think the dissent best stated the law as it should have been done.
It does NOT leave it up to the next of kin. Michael's testimony is but one part of discerning the patient's wishes.
And your comment that the best case involves not getting to court is not always true either. I am confident that there are cases where ALL of the people standing by, doctors included, are NOT carrying out the patient's wishes.
I would trust my husband to follow my wishes.
Nope. But Congress ordered the lower court to consider the evidence anew. He just said NO.
Marbury v Madison will be but a footnote in history when stacked up against this case. It is evident where power resides in this country and it is not with the executive or the legislature.
Thank God you have a fine man for a husband. Sadly, Terri Schiavo doesn't. She isn't the first and she won'tbe the last.
BEWARE THE NEW DEMOCRAT PARTY / LEFTIST TALKING POINT:
THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY THIS IS NOT A LEFT VS RIGHT DECISION.
THIS IS A LEFT VS RIGHT ISSUE.
THIS IS A LIBERAL VS CONSERVATIVE ISSUE.
(eddie whatshername on foxfriends has swallowed the coolaid on this talking point. She makes watching foxand friends difficult in the am.She is the reason I have drifted back to talk radio in the am. BTW Madcow (?) really NAILED this issue when he appeared.)
"I would trust my husband to follow my wishes."
How convenient for you that you still have this ability to make this known. This is all about YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.