My ass you don’t; if you have a living will, it’s legally enforceable.
this is interesting…
for all the “right to life” bullshit that delay and bush have been spouting, there is apparently a law in texas that allows the hospital to “pull the plug” if the patient has no chance of recovering and the family is not able to pay for further treatment.
the baby they mentioned has already been allowed to die, over the wishes of the mother:
I couldn’t let this pass by:
(in discussing the special session of Congress to be held tomorrow to extend federal authority into the Florida state case, the House Republican said)
“We should investigate every avenue before we take the life of a living human being,” said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican. "
For those familiar with Texas and the death penalty and with DeLay’s stand in that regard, please try to suppress laughter and/or nausea.
My ass you don’t; if you have a living will, it’s legally enforceable.[/quote]
Not talking about legally enforcable. My feeling is that any time spent worrying about what happens to your body after you die is time spent poorly.
Good post, Sharpe. FWIW, the feeding tube almost certainly doesn’t go down her throat, but rather penetrates her abdomen and enters the stomach directly.
I guess that’s different than taking the life of a non-living human being…man.
brian
My ass you don’t; if you have a living will, it’s legally enforceable.[/quote]
Not talking about legally enforcable. My feeling is that any time spent worrying about what happens to your body after you die is time spent poorly.[/quote]
The same way worrying about what happens to your possessions after you die, IE, writing a will, is time spent poorly?
You guys have it all wrong. This is about fighting terrorism!
Right now, murder is being committed against a defenceless American citizen,’ DeLay said. 'Mrs Schiavo’s life is being violently wrenched from her body in an act of medical terrorism. What is happening to her is not compassion, it is homicide.’
Husband hits at bid to save coma wife | World news | The Guardian
My ass you don’t; if you have a living will, it’s legally enforceable.[/quote]
Not talking about legally enforcable. My feeling is that any time spent worrying about what happens to your body after you die is time spent poorly.[/quote]
The same way worrying about what happens to your possessions after you die, IE, writing a will, is time spent poorly?[/quote]
No. Unlike your dead body, assets retain their value and need to be dealt with. You could maybe make arrangements to distribute your vital organs and it wouldn’t be wasted time, but everything else seems to me like what the poor folk call “privilege” problems. In other words, not really a big deal–a problem its a privilege to even have.
One thing that I think is a shame is that the parent’s little mad crusade makes the husband financially responsible for fifteen years of medical treatment for his essentially dead wife.
It’s pretty obvious in many respects that the parents, in addition to these crazy ideas of a happy, talkative child, hate the husband enough that they want him to suffer, because they’ve spent the better part of that time fighting to have her kept on life support at his expense.
I’m not entirely certain I can get behind that sentiment. This page seems to have the most objective collection of information, and while it doesn’t seem to state exactly who’s been paying what throughout the whole ordeal (quite frankly, I expect every party involved is hemorrhaging funds to lawyers. Well, except for Congress. Congress’s money is free, after all!), but factors like this:
Recently, Michael received an offer of $1 million, and perhaps a second offer of $10 million, to walk away from this case and permit Terri’s parents to care for her. These offers, assuming there were two, were based on a misunderstanding of the situation here. Michael lacks the power to undo the court order determining Terri’s wishes and requiring the removal of her feeding tube. He did not make the decision and cannot unmake it. The court made the decision on Terri’s behalf. Nonetheless, Michael apparently rejected each offer.
…make me expect the desire to financially punish is, if a motivation, probably not a huge one.
I think the sanest lesson anyone who even hears of this case is:
1: it’s not unique. It’s just one that caught the media’s and those wonderful principled States Rights’ congresspeoples’ attention.
2: Draft a living will. Tell your friends and family and loved ones in unequivocal terms what you want them to decide on your behest.
I pretty much agree with Tim on this–I seriously doubt I’ll give a crap if the very physical mechanism of my conscious thought and feeling is simply gone. But I’d prefer those I love to not face any more suffering than they need to.
If you weren’t already pissed about this, This Week described the “Republican Takling Points™” for this issue, which point out that it’s a big “right-to-life” issue for the anti-abortionists, and that the major opponent is a Democrat. Other Democrats are afraid to oppose Republicans on this issue because of how it’s being presented. McCain was on the show offering his own version of those talking points, further diminishing my respect for the man.
So this is all political grandstanding of the worst sort to appease the base and get another seat in Florida. As they said on the show, whatever Bush will sign will set no precedent and be unusuable beyond this specific case. But they can’t back off now because to do so would be a sign of weakness. (Though it would allow more judicial bashing; “Those justices are out of touch with your values.” Have Republicans, in particular, done more to undermine our judicial system than any other group?)
I wonder if it opens up the floodgates for every “right to life” issue to be a federal one; abortion, in particular, but also death penalty cases. Will the house and congress hold hearings for every single execution? Why is it in those cases they’re respecting the rights of the state and trusting the judicial branches?
Because that doesn’t play with the base.
It’s hard to give much analysis b/c the full text of the proposed legislation isn’t available but based on the quotes in the press articles, I think the Congressional Republican might be wasting their time: the type of law they are proposing probably won’t accomplish what they think it will. I’m not familiar with federal law but my crude understanding is that the proposal would be unconstitutional under both the US and the Florida Constitution for a bunch of reasons.
There are a TON of legal issues here but I’ll just hit a quick list:
First a key note:- While you wouldn’t realize it due to the crap-sloppy reporting, the legal right that is being enforced here by the removal of the feeding tube is Terri’s right to choose her own medical care, including the right to refuse care and the right to die, under Florida’s medical privacy provisions in the Florida Constitution. The issue is NOT the enforcement of Michael Schiavo’s rights as guardian. As guardian he can direct her care but CANNOT decide to remove the feeding tube and end her life. The court in Florida decided that Terri would WANT to die in this circumstance (or more precisely not be kept alive artificially). Although many of the Terri’s Fight type folks assume that “saving” Terri is relying on Terri’s rights, that is actually 180 degrees wrong, legally. Under the Florida law and court decisions, Terri’s rights in this case are to be allowed to refuse medical care and die naturally. The feeding tube removal order is an order to enforce Terri’s legal rights.
With that in mind, the proposed legislation is likely to be rejected by the federal courts for several reasons:
1)the proposed individual-specific law is likely to be considered an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder (which are flat out prohibited in the US Constitution, its a little known provision precisely b/c Congress never does it, b/c it is prohibited). A Bill of Attainder is one which limits the rights of a single specific individual or penalizes a specific individual. Under the Constitution, the Congress can single an individual out for recognition or reward, but CANNOT single an individual out for punishment. To punish or restrict rights, the Congress has to pass a “law of general application” – one which applies to a whole group of people based on some reasonable criteria (like you can fine people who litter etc but you cannot just fine ME b/c you don’t like me.) The Repubs are trying to work around this by phrasing the law as giving rights to Terri’s parents (the law gives them individually and specifically a special federal right to bring the case to fed court but doesn’t give that right to any other citizens - if your name isnt Schindler you are out of luck). However, that is a pretty transparent dodge, since the law will interfere with the enforcement of the legal rights of the individual, Terri, who’s rights have been determined by the Florida courts. So the proposed law is probably dead in the water out of the gate.
2)the proposed legislation will be considered a violation of the separation of powers under the US Constitution and under the Florida Constitution (keep in mind that the fed courts in this case will have to apply BOTH, giving Terri the maximum rights under whichever gives her more rights) The courts in Florida have already decided this case in a full proceeding with dozens of appeals. For Congress to intervene is a crystal clear breach of separation of powers – this issue was litigated by the Florida courts under the Florida constitution and was a slam dunk against the legislature. The federal law on separation is a bit different but generally similiar and will produce a similiar result.
3)The proposed legislation will be considered a breach of due process (a violation of Terri’s rights to medical privacy) in at least a couple of ways: first it prevents the enforcement of a previous judicial finding of Terri’s rights, and second it is a “retrospective” law (ie a new law applied to an old legal controversy that existed before the law was passed). Retrospective laws that affect someones substantive rights (as opposed to just legal procedure) are almost always unconstitutional (you can’t change the rules in the middle of the game).
There are actually a bunch MORE legal problems with the proposed action (you can see some of the arguments in the legal pleadings on Abstract Appeal that were filed in the fight over the Florida Legislatures special law - the issues are roughly similiar, and the Florida Courts beat down Jeb Bush’s arguments like an unruly red-headed stepchild - it was pretty much an ignominious legal blow out against Jeb).
The Repubs probably don’t care b/c their main purpose is just a delaying tactic - they might be able to get a stay while the legal issues are briefed and keep Terri alive a few more months.
But in the long run the end result is certain IMO.
The political thing I don’t like about this is the way the Republicans are just trampling on the law and Constitution without any regard. It’s pretty ugly.
Beyond voting them out, I wish there was a penalty for this kind of abuse.
I thought of one way to realy fuck with the right-to-lifer types supporting her cause: tell them that stem-cell research might, in theory, be able to bring her back, to rebuild her cerebral cortext.
Stem cells probably can’t do that, but it’s no more junk science than the people that claim she’s conscious, that she can react to people, or that she has a chance of recovery.
If you’re looking for some cheap entertainment, the national review is hilariously incoherent about this.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp
RE: FEDERALISM, HYPOCRISY, ETC. [Mark R. Levin]
I second Ramesh’s point. The idiocy of the Left with their phony federalism arguments cannot be overstated. It underscores how completely devoid of arguments they are to support government-ordered starvation. And Ramesh is exactly right on another score, i.e., the issue of death (or life) is already a federal matter, as highlighted by the Left’s favorite institution – the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade. Did the New York Times reverse course today and argue that Roe usurped state authority? Not the last time I checked. The Florida legislature and governor attempted to resolve this some time ago. The Florida Supreme Court stopped them. As I see it, Congress is coming to the aid of state elected officials. Moreover, Congress can and should say that the federal constitutional issue here is the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and it need not cite foreign law to prove that government-ordered starvation meets the test. I am, however, unconvinced that federal court jurisdiction, which is what Congress is fighting for, is the answer.
It’s like having a court case on whether a clown college qualifies for pell grants. Has the trappings of a a logical argument, totally ridiculous starting point.
My ass you don’t; if you have a living will, it’s legally enforceable.[/quote]
Not talking about legally enforcable. My feeling is that any time spent worrying about what happens to your body after you die is time spent poorly.[/quote]
I think my wife actually hates you right now (but then part of her job is to get people to assign power of attorney, and think about DNR and living wills). Do you realize how much pain, suffering, emotional crap people could spare their families if they’d just spend some time thinking about this and making it clear? Funerals and things like this are to spare the LIVING the argument and hassles that come after death. It’s got very little to do with the dead or brain dead.
And this argument re: Terry is disgusting because it’s between the husband and the parents. Terry is a pawn. A brain-dead pawn in a political battle where Tom DeLay goes on TV and villifies a man who has stood by his wife’s side for the past 13 years.
Jeez Tim, you might as well not have a Will if this is your attitude. Basically if you care about your family and the people around you, you couldn’t find a whole lot better to spend time on than issues like this. The real problem is talking about death makes people uncomfortable. The result? Terry Schiavo and 80 year old’s in Stage 5 cancer getting their ribs broken during heroic CPR to get them breathing again.
And to answer your earlier question. I dunno. At this point why doesn’t the husband just let the parents care for her? If you believe that Terry is a vegetable, then dead or “cared for by her parents” isn’t a big distinction, is it? The only answer I could come up with is, I’d probably find it difficult to abandon my wife and move on with my life if she was still alive - even if she was braindead. I’d want to honor her wish for euthenasia.
The real problem is that - to put it in Right-leaning terms - God has decided Terry is dead. He’s killed her. Mankind is keeping her ludicrously alive - and Medicare is footing the bill.
EDIT: My wife doesn’t hate you. But she’s adamant that no matter what side of the “Right to Die” issue you fall on, everyone needs a Living Will and needs to think about Do Not Ressucitate orders, Wills, Power of Attorney, etc., You NEED to think about it so your family, so your doctors, don’t have to think about it when the time comes. Also, she says you should check that box on the back of your license that donates your organs.
Well, it’s hard to second guess the court findings, although hubby doesn’t seem like a great guy and the parents obviously feel there’s some ambiguity over whether or not she’s capable of anything - so presume she wanted to die in such state and almost certainly has no meaningful brain function.
If she’s a vegetable as the court found, then she wouldn’t even know whether or not her “living will” was carried out (and let’s face it, this wasn’t a “will” she specifically set out, it was a few off the cuff comments, which anyone could reconsider in a personal context), so if anything, it seems like her parents are the ones most affected by this decision - there’s a lot was still don’t know about brain functions and cognition - I just don’t see the harm, if there’s any ambiguity at all in either her intentions or abilities (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, which is NOT the standard the courst applied, as opposed to “more likely than not”, which is the standard they did apply), in letting her live.
But my main objection is letting someone die by starvation/dehydration - that is just not humane under any circumstances, and it seems awfully hypocritical to just not helping her die directly if you think that’s her wishes and right.
But my main objection is letting someone die by starvation/dehydration - that is just not humane under any circumstances, and it seems awfully hypocritical to just not helping her die directly if you think that’s her wishes and right.
As discussed previously, this is a really strange objection; starvation isn’t painful, she can’t experience pain anyway, and I don’t see how it ties into “we shouldn’t kill her then,” as direct euthansia is illegal because of the exact same people saying we should keep her shell alive.
Overview of her medical condition:
I just don’t see the harm, if there’s any ambiguity at all in either her intentions or abilities (i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, which is NOT the standard the courst applied, as opposed to “more likely than not”, which is the standard they did apply), in letting her live.
Other than the fact the court found she wouldn’t have wanted this and you’re overriding someone’s wishes, yeah, I can’t imagine what’s so bad about it.
I can’t find the source, but I could swear they were using a clear-and-compelling evidence standard.
Edit: oh, here it is:
All it takes is a few neural receptors to experience pain. How is starvation/dehydration not painful? Can someone provide evidence more irrefutable that Andrew Bub’s wife’s hearsay?