"The only state right I see is the "right" to allow her husband to order the hospice to stop providing food and water to her. Is that the state right you're referring to?
If so, that is NOT a state right, because it violates her right to live."
Longtime lurker here. Just signed up because I happen to agree with Rep Boehlert, as well as several people on this thread, and wanted to respond. And as far as state's rights are concerned, plenty of states have laws that on these "right-to-die" issues and there has been very little in terms of outrage that I've seen. Texas has a law, The Futile Care Law. It was invoked just last week when Sun Hudson, a six-month-old boy with a fatal congenital disease, died after a Texas hospital, over his mother's objections, withdrew his feeding tube. The child was apparently certain to die, but was conscious. The hospital simply made the decision, and the Texas courts upheld that decision after the mother failed, during the 10-day window provided for by Texas law, to find another institution willing to take the child. Where was Congress last week? Are they now going to have to address each of these agonizing situations across the country??
There are thousands of unbearable tragedies, and unthinkable decisions that ordinary people have to make every day. Since myriad doctors and judges have reviewed the Schiavo case for seven years, and have consistently come up with the same conclusion, I have to honor their decisions and tell the Congress to butt out.
Flame away.
If they child was certain to die, why was it necessary to kill it? Why not let it happen naturally without suffering?
Regardless, this does not apply in Terri's case because TERRI IS NOT CERTAIN TO DIE! Please get your facts straight before commenting.
I have to honor their decisions and tell the Congress to butt out.
Constitution says the Congress has the right to butt-in. Do you have a problem with the Constitution?
Welcome!
It is nice to see a new poster with the guts to post an opinion that runs contrary to the "bandwagon emotional hysteria" that often occurs.
Hope you start contributing more.
I agree with you.
Whether the state is claiming the right to do this or not isn't the over-riding issue. What's key is the individual's right to life. The state doesn't have the right to order the death of someone who hasn't been convicted of a capital crime. That's what has happened in this case.
Where was Congress last week?
You answered your own question when you said
a six-month-old boy with a fatal congenital disease
Sun Hudson, according to this CNN.com article, "had been diagnosed with a fatal genetic disorder called thanatophoric dysplasia, a condition characterized by a tiny chest and lungs too small to support life. He had been on a ventilator since birth."
TD is virtually always fatal in the neonatal period.
Whereas, other than cognative impairment, Terri is quite healthy. Her life expectancy, as discussed in Michael Schiavo's malpractice suit of 1993, was expected to be 50 years more. She's hardly "certain to die," to use your phrase. Apples and oranges.
Since myriad doctors and judges have reviewed the Schiavo case for seven years, and have consistently come up with the same conclusion, I have to honor their decisions and tell the Congress to butt out.
In reality, myriad doctors have contradicted each other on Terri's diagnosis and potential. And with regard to the courts, only one judge has essentially ruled in this case. With regard to the appeals courts, as has been explained here on FR and talk radio, they are bound by the findings of the trial judge and overturning a lower court's ruling is pretty difficult. There's only been one trial, in other words, with one presiding judge.
That family had every right to find a new health care provider for their child and/or pay for treatment themselves. I have no doubt that Terri's parents would be elated to have that option.