I doubt that all of the legislators have exactly the same rationalization for voting for (or against) this statute. There is another possibility, besides not liking the outcome. It may be that the legislators did not like the process, i.e., that the process of original adjudication and subsequent state review was perhaps not enough.
There is no denying that the statute was drawn to one case. I think legislative action was taken on this case due to politicial pressure. The legislators demonstrate time and time again that they are not bright. Lasting solutions, broader solutions, take time to evolve, and Congress just got caught flat-footed on this one. Wasn't the first time, and won't be the last.
My reasoned opinion is that the civil judicial process, as presently constituted with centuries of case law behind it, is not equipped to enforce a prospective life/death decision. That is, it is fine in wrongful death, wehre money damages are sought after the death, but it is not equipped to reliably sanction the hastening of death in accordance with the patient's wishes. The judicial processs can be easily manipulated by a corrupt or ignorant judge, and a legally innocent (no capital offense) patient could be killed against his wishes.
Nice chatting with you again. You can have the last word on this subject. I am curious as to whether or not you are satisfied with the present system of judicial process (state Civil and Appellate Procedure) when it is applied in a life-taking case.
True, though the USSC was involved earlier than the legislation and refused to comment. And I agree with your comment that politics likely played into it.
I am curious as to whether or not you are satisfied with the present system of judicial process (state Civil and Appellate Procedure) when it is applied in a life-taking case.
As with everything, this is more complex than a simple answer can address. For example, in criminal life taking cases, most people feel that the review process is overly exhaustive. I feel that if the process follows the law and makes no attempt to either userp the law or create new laws, then, yes, I am satisfied it is doing what it was intended to do. If we are to respect the judiciary as an institution we must accept the bad with the good. In the Schiavo case, the law was likely the culprit. As in most states, these kinds of cases do not adequately cover new life saving technology, the substance and power of living wills, distinguishing between life support and feeding mechanisms, etc. I suspect that the good that will come out of the Schiavo case will be reviews of these laws and procedures in most states.
But at the same time I would guess the judicial process works fine most of the time. For example, in the Mae Magouirk case, the subject of this and several threads, the judicial process was working exactly as designed (with the possible exception of the Friday meeting), but many here were unaware of what was going on and wanted to take the "law" into their own hands, in a sort of mob justice or anarchic resolution. In Mae's case, folks put everthing into a respect for her "living will", but in the Schiavo case they did not. I suspect that most here would also ignore any living will that either asked for a "quick end" or anything that suggested suicide. Folks can't have it both ways.
In any case, on to other perhaps less inflammatory and divisive issues. Enjoyed it and take care.
Still, our history is that judges regularly forget this and end up killing people.
A parallel to the current problem occurred in the 1920s/30s when judges got the idea that doctors knew what they were doing when it came to frontal lobotomies and forced sterilizations.
Obviously the judges were as ignorant and bigoted as the doctors they pandered to.