The Schiavo issue

mousepod · 03-25-2005, 09:02 AM

MBC - Thanks for your post. You have eloquently articulated what I'm feeling.

scaeagles · 03-25-2005, 10:22 AM

After much thought, I have come to the following conclusions, some of which contradict what I had earlier posted.

First - the contradictory one - I no longer believe it was proper for the legislative branch of the US - the federal government - to get involved in what is an internal issue of the state of Florida. GWBush should not have signed the law. The law should not have been passed. (This is with a caveat, which I will go into shortly.) The Supreme Court was right in not hearing the case.

Because I believe it to be an internal issue to the state or Florida, I do not fault Jeb Bush for any action he took. He is the governor of Florida, and as the highest official of the executive branch, it was his duty to follow whatever he thought best for Florida and the laws thereof. Even if that means passing a law later deemed unConstitutional. That is how the system is set up - the legislative branch passes, the executive signs, and the judicial hears suits regarding the constitutionality thereof.

I still do not trust Michael Schiavo, and this is only based on one thing, which is provable - why not use the large funds for her care to provide for some up to date technologically advanced medical tests? That is the one thing I cannot reconcile or get past. (That and the fact that he hooked up with the other woman while supposedly still looking out for Terri's interests, but I have no evidence to suggest he isn't. Just a feeling.)

I think a law should be passed - within each state, of course - that says that any immediate relative (spouse, of age children, parents) that are willing to pay for the care of a non-terminally ill patient should be given the right to do so. While against what is happening, I suppose it does come down to the right of Michael Schiavo. It does not change that it is inhumane to starve someone. The idea for this law is not mine - it is from Charles Krauthammer, a quadraplegic MD and columnist whom I hold in the highest regard.

Now for my caveat - what if a civil rights suit had been filed on behalf of Terri? Is denial of food or water to end her life a violation of her civil rights? I would suppose it is, and I doubt it would have been dismissed by federal courts. Regardless of the ruling, the case would have been heard. Her husband does not have the authority to deny her civil rights in making a medical decision, I would suppose.

Is it not a violation of her civil rights?

SacTown Chronic · 03-25-2005, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I think a law should be passed - within each state, of course - that says that any immediate relative (spouse, of age children, parents) that are willing to pay for the care of a non-terminally ill patient should be given the right to do so.

Are you suggesting that anyone who wishes to decline being kept alive by extraordinary measures would be SOL?

scaeagles · 03-25-2005, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SacTown Chronic

Are you suggesting that anyone who wishes to decline being kept alive by extraordinary measures would be SOL?

Pardon me - I should have included in that the following -

"In the absence of a living will or physical documentation of the patient's wishes."

SacTown Chronic · 03-25-2005, 11:09 AM

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

03-25-2005, 09:02 AM	#1
mousepod You broke your Ramadar! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,635	MBC - Thanks for your post. You have eloquently articulated what I'm feeling. __________________ "Give the public everything you can give them, keep the place as clean as you can keep it, keep it friendly" - Walt Disney
	Submit to Quotes

03-25-2005, 10:22 AM	#2
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	After much thought, I have come to the following conclusions, some of which contradict what I had earlier posted. First - the contradictory one - I no longer believe it was proper for the legislative branch of the US - the federal government - to get involved in what is an internal issue of the state of Florida. GWBush should not have signed the law. The law should not have been passed. (This is with a caveat, which I will go into shortly.) The Supreme Court was right in not hearing the case. Because I believe it to be an internal issue to the state or Florida, I do not fault Jeb Bush for any action he took. He is the governor of Florida, and as the highest official of the executive branch, it was his duty to follow whatever he thought best for Florida and the laws thereof. Even if that means passing a law later deemed unConstitutional. That is how the system is set up - the legislative branch passes, the executive signs, and the judicial hears suits regarding the constitutionality thereof. I still do not trust Michael Schiavo, and this is only based on one thing, which is provable - why not use the large funds for her care to provide for some up to date technologically advanced medical tests? That is the one thing I cannot reconcile or get past. (That and the fact that he hooked up with the other woman while supposedly still looking out for Terri's interests, but I have no evidence to suggest he isn't. Just a feeling.) I think a law should be passed - within each state, of course - that says that any immediate relative (spouse, of age children, parents) that are willing to pay for the care of a non-terminally ill patient should be given the right to do so. While against what is happening, I suppose it does come down to the right of Michael Schiavo. It does not change that it is inhumane to starve someone. The idea for this law is not mine - it is from Charles Krauthammer, a quadraplegic MD and columnist whom I hold in the highest regard. Now for my caveat - what if a civil rights suit had been filed on behalf of Terri? Is denial of food or water to end her life a violation of her civil rights? I would suppose it is, and I doubt it would have been dismissed by federal courts. Regardless of the ruling, the case would have been heard. Her husband does not have the authority to deny her civil rights in making a medical decision, I would suppose. Is it not a violation of her civil rights?
	Submit to Quotes

03-25-2005, 11:09 AM	#5
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Ok. Thanks for the clarification. __________________ Is it the fingers, or the brain that you're teaching a lesson?
	Submit to Quotes