“You have yet to show that the state could not ban such things totally and stop the exercise of this purported right. And do not forget that there is a competing right, Terri's right to life, and the state has leeway to decide where the two rights meet. It is not a one sided question as in your hypothetical example.”
I admit that my example was one sided, intentionally so, as I posted would be in reality a very unlikely occurrence.
As far as a competing State right and Terri’s right to life and the State right to protect that right (I would describe it as more a duty rather than a right) I would have to argue that in this case it is no longer a valid question.
Pursuant the Florida Constitution “[e]very natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person’s private life”. Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution. As a result Terri and everyone else has a fundamental right to control his or her person which includes the right to control what or what not will be done to his or her body. As an enumerated constitutionally guaranteed right, this right does not extend to the government nor is subject to legislation. The only method for the State to intrude would be by amending the Constitution which requires the express consent of the people, not simply the passing of a law by the legislative body.
There is a great deal of law available on this subject, both State and Federal. In Re: TW, 551 So. 2d at 1122; North Florida Women’s Health and Counseling Services, Inc. 2003, WL 2546546 at *6 (Fla, July 10, 2003); Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Department of Public Health, 497 U.S. 261, 279 (1990); Vacco vs. Quill, 521 U.S. 793, 807 (1990); Browning, 568 So. 2d at 10; Quiles vs. City of Boynton Beach, 802 So. 2d 397, 399 (Fla. 4th> DCA 2001).
The Florida Constitutional right used strong terms and language to make the right as strong as possible to prevent governmental intrusion such as the Florida legislature did by passing Terri’s law. The case often referred to is Winfield vs. Division of Pari-Mutual Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548 (Fla. 1985).
In the Schiavo case Terri’s wishes were determined by the Circuit court “by clear and convincing evidence” and after review, affirmed by the appellate court. It also has been determined at trial in the Circuit Court and affirmed by the appellate court numerous times that Terri is in “a persistent vegetative state” (a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness) and further, that the evidence “conclusively established that she has no hope of regaining consciousness”. As a result of the extensive court considerations and subsequent decisions, there can be no compelling State interest to step into this situation and restore the feeding tube where Terri’s wishes have been legally established to be in the contrary. Satz vs. Perlmutter, 379 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1980) “state’s interest in the preservation of life does not outweigh the privacy right of a competent person suffering from an incurable affliction.”
This is all pretty “heady” stuff and I am personally glad I do not have no make such decisions. However these decisions must be made. Once made, they cannot nor should be, second guessed by either a nonparticipating governor or legislature. By doing so, I believe that Terri’s right and life are diminished to merely political “talking points”.
I still believe that Terri’s law will be found unconstitutional. Believe it or not, I hope that the allegation that Terri was communicating with Morton Plant’s staff is true. Unfortunately, given the response I received and the total lack of any verifiable source, it appears that there is no evidence to support the claims.
It's a little hard to prove it, since Michael won't allow any taping of Terri. He's afraid of something. I was very surprised at Dr. Hammersfahr information. Terri is certainly more aware than the media protrays. I'm sure all the nurses and staff have been threatened with their jobs if they say anything about this case to the media.
If so, "the law is an ass."