What a wonderful Clintonian defense! The fact is, you based your argument on something totally irrelevant, and can't make a compelling argument from the actual facts. Your response never addresses the horrific idea of ignoring what we believe a person would have wanted, despite later technology or legislation or whatever. A health-care proxy who is not allowed to make decisions is useless. We MUST start respecting individuals and their preferences, not just treat people as a mass of "life" without any rights of their own to decide for themselves or have others act on their behalf based on current information.
Puhleeze. Here's a redeaux ...
If they'd believed that Mrs. Schiavo would have wanted to live and receive treatment, it would be ridiculous to say, "that therapy wasn't available back then so it doesn't count"...Your response never addresses the horrific idea of ignoring what we believe a person would have wanted, despite later technology or legislation or whatever.Your hypothetical doesn't undermine my contention. The base for concluding that Terri's statement was unfairly construed is that the colloquial term "life support" did not (and probably does not, today, for the majority of people) include the basic necessities of food and water, even if given via tube or IV. The difference in construction (imputing to her comment, without the benefit of asking her, the inclusion of food and water) makes a life/death difference.
The court's construction of Terri's comments used statutory language, which Terri did not see or reasonably foresee. Assuming Terri said, "I don't want to be on life support," the burden was unfairly put on Terri's family, to prove that she didn't mean to include basic care.
The object of the law is to comply with the patient's wishes. Changing a material term of art behind the patient's back may result in NOT following the patient's wishes.
I wonder if a written advance directive that does NOT recite "you are directed to withhold food and water" is construed as an order to withhold food and water.
That is correct. My response was that your "advancement of the art" argument didn't undermine my contention that Terri's express wish could have been misconstrued.
A health-care proxy who is not allowed to make decisions is useless.
A written directive, or an oral express directive is also useless, if the terms of art in it can be materially changed after the person expresses their wishes.
We MUST start respecting individuals and their preferences
And how does misconstruction of express wishes accomplish that objective?