The Schiavo issue

[mousepod]

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

[scaeagles]

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]

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]

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]

Ok. Thanks for the clarification.

[Betty]

Article from OC Weekly on the issue that brings up some interesting points: http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/05/29/commie-schoenkopf.php

[innerSpaceman]

I just want to ditto the props for MBC's post. I can't give him any mojo, cause I guess I've given too much to him recently. That's to be expected for someone who so often eloquently expresses thoughts I share with him to such a degree that I oft wonder why he has more of a direct connection to my heart and mind than I do.

I have been following this thread, but have never yet posted in it. Now that the Supreme Court of the United States has refused to take the case and a Florida judge has ruled that the state cannot take over her care, I am flabbergasted as to why reasonable people cannot have faith in our judicial system when the case has been heard by skeighty-eight justices from the lowest in the land to the highest in the land and on every level in between. If that kind of judicial test won't pass muster, then you are denying our entire system of lawful society. And if the laws themselves that denote a spouse as next of kin are wrong in your view, then you are denying far more of society's harmonious structure.

[Disneyphile]

I'd just like to state for the record that if I should ever become decapitated, please let me die. I also request a monument in the form of one pair of red longjohns to be displayed by the attraction that is unanimously chosen by my boyfriend, family, and the swanky folks on this board. And under no circumstances should my head ever be frozen. Thanks!

[Nephythys]

Um, if you are decapitated death will NOT be something we need to quibble about. Now, should you become incapacitated, that may be a different issue.

You do at least need to have your head attached. LOL

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

Um, if you are decapitated death will NOT be something we need to quibble about.

You obviously have never seen They Saved Hitler's Brain