Posted on 03/31/2005 9:13:24 AM PST by Piranha
President Bush should call for Congress to hold hearings and set up a federal structure for resolving end-of-life issues. Among others, the following issues should be decided and written into law:
(a) Should removal of a feeding tube be treated the same as disconnecting a life-support system? (b) What standards should be used for requiring a feeding tube be inserted (i.e., mandatory rather than volitional)? (c) There should be a safe harbor for removal of a feeding tube if certain regulations are followed: (i) The person with the feeding tube should have his own legal representation (ii) A living will is different than a will. A will divides up assets after a person is dead; a living will sets up the standard of care for the last days of a person's life. Therefore, a living will should not be dispositive, but should be evidence of a person's state of mind at the time the living will was written. (iii) In evaluating testimony regarding the wishes of the incapacitated person, a primary factor should be full analysis of possible conflicts of interest -- i.e., insurance benefits, remarriage, asset distribution, etc.) (iv) Hospice-like locations should be established (by the private market) for people who are incapacitated but not dying. Hospices should be for people at the end of their life, and should not be permitted to keep residents for more than a short period (six months?). (v) If the evidence is inconclusive, great weight should be given to the availability of a close blood-relative or other person of interest to provide care for the incapacitated person if a feeding tube is inserted. However, the absence of such a person should not be conclusive in deciding whether it should be removed. (vi) Mandatory assessments should be conducted to determine whether the incapacitated person is likely to benefit from therapy. If the conclusion is that such therapy could improve the state of life of the incapacitated, then it should be mandatory. If the conclusion is otherwise, then such therapy always should be permitted, absent medical proof that the therapy would be harmful to the incapacitated person. (vii) Private insurance companies should be urged to sell end-of-life policies for specifically the purpose of keeping incapacitated people on feeding tubes as long as they are able (without certain extreme measures, such as ventilators, being required).
I threw these items together off the top of my head; perhaps others have thoughts they would like to add.
They already passed a law and the courts refused to apply it. The courts are the problem, not the laws
Liberals life and death views wrt Terri:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1374073/posts
Yeah, that's the answer... MORE GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE!
Keep this issue at the state level where it belongs.
The law that was passed was specific to Terri Schiavo, and called for the courts to give a de novo review. It did not provide any standards for the review.
Will this require a Presidential Cabinet Level Position? How many people will be employed in this Department of Personal Lives Interference?
Let's continue to react emotionally to issues so that we can all grow government larger and larger. Given enough time, maybe federal spending can consume 100% of GDP.
More laws when we don't respect the ones we already have?
The right to life is one of the oldest and most fundamental rights in our national history. Even those who advocate for extraordinarily limited federal power must agree that there are some areas in which the federal government has a legitimate right.
I believe that protecting the rights of its citizens is one of these rights. This bill would provide a mechanism to ensure that at least certain minimum standards are being followed. Because it is only a safe harbor, however, and not a mandatory path, there would be other alternatives available to states as long as due process is followed (which to me means, at a minimum, that conflicts of interest are aggressively identified and the incapacitated person has his own representation).
Let's stick with the 10th Amendment Please!!!
We Republicans (The so called party of smaller government)already look like hypocrites with this case by bringing it to national level, So instead of aggravating it more let's just drop it and hope everyone forgets this by 2006 & 2008
No it's not.
They all should be repealed.
And absolutely, ABSOLUTELY no new laws on this topic.
The only law that will be passed after this disaster is a law allowing lethal injection for PVS patients, so they don't have to "suffer like Terri".
Which laws passed since 1972 are the cause of this problem?
Some things belong in the hands of the states...You want things like this done, you should work for them in the state of your choice.
Rush is explaining it right now. The federal court says they had no basis for getting involved, after congress passed the law involving them.
What we need to do is IMPEACH JUDGES who think they're above the law. Greer would be a good start.
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.