My Take On Terry Schiavo Situation

[David Sklansky]

1. People have a right to commit suicide. If the only thing that stops them is their religion, thst's their business.

2. In spite of the above, most people who are contemplating suicide should be discouraged or stopped from doing it. The main reason is simple: Many of those who want to die will later change their minds. We know this because many of those who try suicide and fail, don't try again. They are thus presumably glad they failed or were stopped.

3. Therefore the only people who we should be willing to let go are those who are in dire straits, most likely in severe pain, and who have no hope for recovery. It also might make sense to accept the suicide of someone who is in severe pain whose only hope for alleviation is years down the road.

4. Someone who is not in severe pain but who is horribly incapacitated could reasonably want to die, but only if it is clear that no medical help is on the horizon AND that he won't change his mind in the future (I was once told by the sister of a parapalegic that my poker books and private tutoring made her brother change his mind about suicide.) I think in cases like this I would be in favor of a year or two waiting period before the government allowed an assisted suicide.

5. Many, if not most, people who are not in severe pain do not want to die regardless of the circumstances. Even paralyzed people are often able to find enjoyment in things. Plus when there is life, there is hope. This goes for other types of afflictions as well. But here's the thing: MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THEY WILL ULTIMATELY FEEL THIS WAY IF THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE SITUATION. THEY THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO DIE. And in fact they may want to die at first. But they usually change their mind as long as their is not severe pain. Now this mistake on their part is usually not important. But what about those times that they can't communicate their revised wishes?

6. Because of the above I believe that Terry Schiavo (or anybody below an advanced age for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to direct their destiny in cases where they are incapacitated, can't communicate, not in pain, and there is even the slightest chance of a recovery. My reason is that in those cases there is a distinct posssibility that the patient, if he could be awakened for five minutes, would reverse the instuctions he had given. Even if that was a longshot, pot odds say you should err in that direction. (The equation changes however if the patient is in extreme pain, is extremely uncomfortable, or maybe even if it is very expensive to keep them alive. The possibility of organ donation also might come into play.)

7. Despite the fact that I believe that the feeding tube should not have been removed from Terry, it does not follow that I think the courts ruled incorrectly. In fact I almost enjoyed seeing the people and the executive branch learn the lesson that good judges will logically follow law regardless of the consequences. Most people don't realize that. For instance I think the judges who allowed gay marriages are not necessarily "activist". Rather they are simply taking anti discrimination laws to their logical conclusion. If a law says you can't stop a women from being a fireman or a bookie just because she's female, you also can't stop her from marrying a woman. I'm sure many judges might be disgusted by gay marriages but still ruled in favor of them. So too, probably with the Schiavo case. But the unfortunate result was bad as far as I am concerned.

8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.

[adanthar]

That was a great post, except that in Terri's case there is, in fact, no chance of recovery.

Unfortunately, the media have ranged from bad to horrible at expressing that so there's no way for you to know, but suffice to say the 'debate' is analogous to the evolution vs. intelligent design 'debate'.

Other than that, I like it.

[Dead]

I agree.

They should have given Terri a lethal injection instead. But most medical experts have concluded that she can't feel pain anyway.

[tipperdog]

Small comment #1: Many people who attempt suicide are suffering from a treatable mental illness. It's more than a case of simply "changing their minds;" getting treatment changes their entire perspective on life.

Small comment #2: I do think there is a significant difference between removing a feeding tube and delivering a lethal injection (although I support both). For a physician to actively deliver a drug that causes death is quite different than witholding treatment and allowing nature to take its course. I think that distinction is self evident and far more than semantic.

Big Comment #1: So, in a nutshell, your position is that any person not in pain should be kept alive by any means necessary indefinitely, even if the chance of recovery if miniscule AND even if the person has expressly requested not to be kept alive in such a situation. Is that correct?

This is not a good idea because it replaces a person's informed wishes with a best guess about what their wishes might be.

I suggest this alternative: require that advance directives be taken seriously--more of an "informed consent" document. Before executing ADs, require that signatories read information about various options, including information that people who often think they want to die change their mind, as you described above. Maybe even throw in some mandatory counseling. Then, if the person still wants an AD, execute it, and honor it.

That's what I would want. And that ought to be my choice.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Many, if not most, people who are not in severe pain do not want to die regardless of the circumstances

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you willing to place a wager on this? I would be willing to bet that well over 50% of people in Terri Schiavo's situation (no pain) would prefer death.

[BCPVP]

Hopefully, Mr. Sklansky won't suffer a backlash and be forced to remove his opinion on the Schiavo case.... /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
Because of the above I believe that Terry Schiavo (or anybody below an advanced age for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to direct their destiny in cases where they are incapacitated, can't communicate, not in pain, and there is even the slightest chance of a recovery.

[/ QUOTE ]

A person not being able to direct their destiny is not a correct philosphy. Directing destiny is fundamental to the human experience.

In this case the problem is that she did not provide the direction in writing. Therefore the direction of the destiny falls on the legal guardian -- this is both correct legally and morally.

The case is about two things -- 1. legal guardianship its role and definition and 2. once the decision is made providing a better method of reaching the logical outcome (for example a lethal injection).

The courts have correctly ruled on the first -- based on present law. Present law does not provide for the second. We can propose to change the law for both of these things and perhaps we should

The rest is emotional reactions to death.

[hunterking]

This case presents a very interesting moral dilemma, doesn't it? I'm still not sure how I feel about it (though not for lack of soul-searching), but I really appreciated the points that Mr. Sklansky made in 7 and 8:

[ QUOTE ]

7. Despite the fact that I believe that the feeding tube should not have been removed from Terry, it does not follow that I think the courts ruled incorrectly. In fact I almost enjoyed seeing the people and the executive branch learn the lesson that good judges will logically follow law regardless of the consequences. Most people don't realize that. For instance I think the judges who allowed gay marriages are not necessarily "activist". Rather they are simply taking anti discrimination laws to their logical conclusion. If a law says you can't stop a women from being a fireman or a bookie just because she's female, you also can't stop her from marrying a woman. I'm sure many judges might be disgusted by gay marriages but still ruled in favor of them. So too, probably with the Schiavo case. But the unfortunate result was bad as far as I am concerned.

8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

hunterking

[goofball]

Judges are indeed supposed to uphold the law. Obviosuly this is how they are able to let go serial killers and rapists.

The thing about Terry Schiavo is that her chance of meaningful recovery is zero according to almost every expert I've heard. Her brain has been substantially repleased with fluid.

[hunterking]

yeah apparently her entire cerebrum dissolved and was replaced by spinal fluid...on the other hand, there have been documented cases where the remaining brain takes over tasks that were once the domain of another part of the brain that was damaged...just playing devil's advocate here...not sure where i stand

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah apparently her entire cerebrum dissolved and was replaced by spinal fluid...on the other hand, there have been documented cases where the remaining brain takes over tasks that were once the domain of another part of the brain that was damaged

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way: the chances of her brain stem and what's left of the rest of her brain taking over the functions of her cerebral cortex are roughly equivalent to her regrowing the tail she lost as a four month old fetus.

[natedogg]

Is it the govt's job to prevent you from doing something with serious consequences because you might regret it later or because you might change your mind if you wait a while?

I would say no.

natedogg

[Dead]

In some cases, yes.

If we know that someone intends on murdering someone else(based on threats that have been given, for example), we should arrest that person and investigate it.

Even in cases like suicide, it is not a victimless crime. The families grieve. In cases with kids under 18, the answer is simple. The parents can have them put in protective custody, in a psych ward.

But what about those people who are over age 18? I suppose that the family should do everything in their power to figure out why the person is suicidal, and help that person to realize that life is worth living. Easier said than done.

Someone close to me committed suicide 10 years ago. I wonder if something could have been done about it. There were no signs, at least that I noticed. Then again, I was a little kid. But now I'm rambling...

[hunterking]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yeah apparently her entire cerebrum dissolved and was replaced by spinal fluid...on the other hand, there have been documented cases where the remaining brain takes over tasks that were once the domain of another part of the brain that was damaged

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way: the chances of her brain stem and what's left of the rest of her brain taking over the functions of her cerebral cortex are roughly equivalent to her regrowing the tail she lost as a four month old fetus.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i know, nothing short of a miracle

[andyfox]

I don't think the argument in this case is whether or not she should be allowed to commit suicide. It's whether she ever actually wanted to commit it. The husband says she verbally told him not to keep her going; the parents deny it happened and insinuate ulterior motives on the part of the husband.

I like your denial of the accuracy of the word "activist" in "activist judges." A judge is usually only described as activist when his decisions result in policies that are viewed as left of center. When a right of center judge, like, for example, Scalia, lets what he sees as the language of the law yield its logical conclusion, he's seen as an "originalist."

[nothumb]

I just want to point out that many people who refuse treatment (meeting the qualifications you describe, advanced in age, extreme pain, no hope of recovery) choose to die by removal of nutrition and do so peacefully. I read an article about this during the whole controversy and it basically pointed out that many mammals die this way naturally when they get old, that it is really a peaceful and at times euphoric process, and that it is the medical norm for a lot of people who do not want to be kept alive artificially.

I just think this demonstrates that people who think Terri is being treated 'worse than a dog in a kennel' are either unaware of the medical norms in this case or (in the instance of many pundits) sensationalizing a reasonable aspect of this story.

NT

[El Barto]

Why does David start threads here, and then neveer return to reply to all the replies?

[BCPVP]

Because Mr. Sklansky probably has a life... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to point out that many people who refuse treatment (meeting the qualifications you describe, advanced in age, extreme pain, no hope of recovery) choose to die by removal of nutrition and do so peacefully.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dehydration may well be a more painful death than starvation. I'll bet that old people who choose to stop eating don't also stop drinking water.

Also, some people handle pain differently than others, and not everybody's body is identical to everybody else's. One person starving may not be in much pain while another might be.

I think it is repugnantly presumptive to claim that starvation/dehydration is an across-the-board non-painful peaceful experience. I've read articles claiming opposite directions on this. So again, we don't know for sure.

NYT (if as I recall it was indeed NYT; sorry but I'm not going to search it down now), did an article in 2002 about starving people in an African country dying clutching their stomachs in pain. Very recently they had something claiming that death by starvation, as Terri is undergoing, is painless. Huh, yeah, right, it's both ways, sure. And again, dehydration is probably more painful than starvation.

I'm just trying to say it is WRONG to presume things like this, just as it is wrong to presume that this is what Terri would have wanted, or that Michael Schiavo is telling the truth (given the background).

I think Terri deserves the benefit of the doubt in all regards, and I find it appalling how many people don't want to give her the benefit of the doubt in any regard.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does David start threads here, and then neveer return to reply to all the replies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's leaving it for others to elaborate? Sorry couldn't resist.

[tolbiny]

"NYT (if as I recall it was indeed NYT; sorry but I'm not going to search it down now), did an article in 2002 about starving people in an African country dying clutching their stomachs in pain. Very recently they had something claiming that death by starvation, as Terri is undergoing, is painless. Huh, yeah, right, it's both ways, sure."

Peole who starve to death in africa are in a very different situation- they often have minescule amounts of food to eat which keeps their body desireing more, which can cause pain. They also tend to eat just about anything they can, which results in them ingesting a lot of substances that really screw up their system and cause them pain. It very well could "work both ways" since there are major differences between the scenarios you are comparing.

[MMMMMM]

Good point, tolbiny.

At any rate I don't believe all experts would agree with the assessment that it is always painless in the zero food scenario.

[Cyrus]

Natedogg wrote [ QUOTE ]
Is it the govt's job to prevent you from doing something with serious consequences because you might regret it later or because you might change your mind if you wait a while?


[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, I don't think you completely understood that specific point made by Sklansky about the courts.

[gasgod]

This case illustrates vividly that we -- as a society -- have not given sufficient thought to these questions:

What is life?

What is personal identity, and how does the answer to this bear on the first question?

What is consciousness, and how does the answer to this bear on the first question?

Why is it important to preserve life? Are we trying to preserve personal identity or consciousness? A functioning brain stem? A beating heart? A liver cell culture?

What is government's proper role in this process?

Does the cost associated with preserving life have any bearing on the issue? Suppose Terri could be kept "alive" only by spending $100,000/day. Does that matter?

The hysteria that surrounds this case doesn't even come close to addressing the core issues. (BTW, I realize that there are many core issues that I have not addressed.)


GG

[Zoelef]

[ QUOTE ]
8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dr. Jack Kevorkian is in prison, and I don't think that's going to change.

Also, a few months ago there was a story in my local newspaper where a father (early 60s) honored his son's (mid-30s) request for euthansia - I believe the son suffered from neural damage, but I don't remember the details - and after word got around, the father was arrested and convicted of involuntary manslaughter charges.

[tek]

For someone who questions the existence of a supreme creator of the world, you are basically advocating that government officials determine peoples' fate and act like "god" (my words).

The words from an old 60's era song comes t mind:

"...he can't even run his own life--I'll be dammed if he'll run mine..."

The logical extreme of taking over and/or overiding peoples' decisions in their life is George Orwell's 1984. Government officials don't own people, although they try to.

If you and the government officials who know so much about what is best for people would channel your prescience into your own lives, the world would be a better place.

And as far as the Sciavo case, it was a blatant attempt by the Bushes to get votes--nothing more. For politicians, follow the money and follow the votes. The Bushes have never cared about the people in inner cities that have died from the drugs and guns that the GHWB-led CIA ran into the inner cities, they never cared about the people that died as a result of their installation of puppet dictators in third world countries (again--CIA), but they CARE about brain-dead people whose families have cash and connections.

[The Dude]

[ QUOTE ]
8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.


[/ QUOTE ]
I agree completely with this line of thinking.

[adios]

As usual good take (I guess because I basically agree /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). You wrote:

8. Changing the subject slightly, what's with this idea of removing feeding tubes? If the government is going to sanction such deaths how can they be so coldhearted and hypocritical as to not then allow the more humane (I would assume) lethal injection? Because one is a sin of omission rather than commission? Cmon. That is a technical distinction that has no place in a supposedly compassionate society when the end result is increased suffering.

It would seem obvious that a lethal injection is more humane and I've stated it myself on this forum yet ridiculed nonetheless sigh .... I'm amazed by the talking head doctors that go on T.V. and defend the inhumanity.

[hunterking]

[ QUOTE ]
I just want to point out that many people who refuse treatment (meeting the qualifications you describe, advanced in age, extreme pain, no hope of recovery) choose to die by removal of nutrition and do so peacefully. I read an article about this during the whole controversy and it basically pointed out that many mammals die this way naturally when they get old, that it is really a peaceful and at times euphoric process, and that it is the medical norm for a lot of people who do not want to be kept alive artificially.

I just think this demonstrates that people who think Terri is being treated 'worse than a dog in a kennel' are either unaware of the medical norms in this case or (in the instance of many pundits) sensationalizing a reasonable aspect of this story.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah i've fasted (no food or water) for 7 days before, and it was very euphoric after only a small amount of hunger the first day

disclaimer: i DO NOT recommend this type of fasting for anyone who is not under the guidance of an extremely knowledgable and qualified health practitioner as it can be EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

[hunterking]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, a few months ago there was a story in my local newspaper where a father (early 60s) honored his son's (mid-30s) request for euthansia - I believe the son suffered from neural damage, but I don't remember the details - and after word got around, the father was arrested and convicted of involuntary manslaughter charges.

[/ QUOTE ]

i also saw a quick story very recently about a girl who killed her father to ease his suffering after a failed suicide attempt...does anyone know the outcome of this story?

[KellyRae]

Not sure I agree that the courts "followed the law" here.

Two points:

1. If a federal court concedes in rendering a determination that a federal law is constitutional, how can they require Terry's parents to demonstrate that they have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits for purposes of making a determination as to whether to reinsert the feeding tube. While that may be the standard that is applied in your run of the mill injunctive relief cases, to apply such a standard here is nonsensical. It was clear that Terry would die before the merits of an action brought pursuant to the new federal law could be passed upon and resolved. I seriously doubt that this standard would have been or is applied by judges in connection with capital cases (i.e. if a federal law calls for a more stringent standard of review in death penalty cases and such law provides for retroactive application, would a court seriously refuse to stay a pending execution that was scheduled before a hearing on the merits of the new federal law). I am not saying that the courts couldn't reach the conclusion that Terry's rights here compelled allowing her to die after reviewing the case under the new federal law (or for that matter, after concluding that the new federal law was unconstitutional), but to deny the relief requested before reaching any such resolution doesn't seem right from a legal, logical or moral standpoint.

2. I'm not sure I agree that the determination of the Florida Supreme Court in reviewing the Florida law which gave governor Bush the authority to reinsert the feeding tube in the first place. Many states have adopted a "no will/no kill" type standard for situations like this; it seems to me that courts shouldn't be entering politics and overturning these types of legislative enactments. To many this may seem counterintuitive, but given that much of the debate seems to center on "whether politicians should get involved" one must remember that this particular dispute arose in large part because of the refusal of state courts (in particular the SCOFLAW) to follow a legislative enactment.

[Analyst]

[ QUOTE ]

5. Many, if not most, people who are not in severe pain do not want to die regardless of the circumstances. Even paralyzed people are often able to find enjoyment in things. Plus when there is life, there is hope. This goes for other types of afflictions as well. But here's the thing: MANY PEOPLE DO NOT REALIZE THEY WILL ULTIMATELY FEEL THIS WAY IF THEY ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE SITUATION. THEY THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO DIE. And in fact they may want to die at first. But they usually change their mind as long as their is not severe pain. Now this mistake on their part is usually not important. But what about those times that they can't communicate their revised wishes?

6. Because of the above I believe that Terry Schiavo (or anybody below an advanced age for that matter) shouldn't be allowed to direct their destiny in cases where they are incapacitated, can't communicate, not in pain, and there is even the slightest chance of a recovery. My reason is that in those cases there is a distinct posssibility that the patient, if he could be awakened for five minutes, would reverse the instuctions he had given.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I agree with much of DS's post, this particular argument falls completely flat. Any directives that I prepare regarding this type of situation are made using the best information that I have at the time - including the possibility there is a chance that I might change my mind when "push comes to shove". You presume that I am not taking into account all of these factors and because of that you can overrule my expressed wishes. Directing my own destiny - and delegating those whom I trust to carry out those directions - when I am incapacitated is precisely the reason for preparing the appropriate documents (living wills, powers of attorney, etc.) ahead of time. .

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
If a federal court concedes in rendering a determination that a federal law is constitutional, how can they require Terry's parents to demonstrate that they have a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits for purposes of making a determination as to whether to reinsert the feeding tube. While that may be the standard that is applied in your run of the mill injunctive relief cases, to apply such a standard here is nonsensical

[/ QUOTE ]

If congress intended a different standard for this one case, they could have changed the standard in the silly law they created.

[adios]

On point 1.
[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying that the courts couldn't reach the conclusion that Terry's rights here compelled allowing her to die after reviewing the case under the new federal law (or for that matter, after concluding that the new federal law was unconstitutional), but to deny the relief requested before reaching any such resolution doesn't seem right from a legal, logical or moral standpoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is why I'm thinking the law was probably unconstitutional. Why would the Courts honor a law that they deemed unconstitutional? Don't know for sure, just asking.

On poit 2.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I agree that the determination of the Florida Supreme Court in reviewing the Florida law which gave governor Bush the authority to reinsert the feeding tube in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

From what I've seen from talking head lawyers (David Boies was one of the lawyers that made this comment) the reason the law was deemed unconstitutional was that it applied to Terri's case only. Again not sure if that is right.

[KellyRae]

I disagree. The courts applied the wrong standard. Point me to any capital case where such a standard was applied in circumstances such as these.

[KellyRae]

I do agree that the law may be deemed unconstitutional and it may have been likely that such would be the finding, but what if it's not. In any event, the court assumed the constitutionality for purposes of reaching its decision. That is what, to me, makes zero sense here.

[adios]

...

[elwoodblues]

10 seconds of research:

Anderson v. Davis - 279 F3d 674
Parker v. State Board of Pardons - 275 F3d 1032
Ingram v Ault - 50 F3d 898

All say that in order to get a TRO or Temporary injunction in a death penalty case, the defendant has to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

the reason the law was deemed unconstitutional was that it applied to Terri's case only. Again not sure if that is right.

Thia is analogous to the US Constitution's prohibition of bills of atainder.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Jesse Jackson and Randall Terry were on the "Save Terry" bandwagon. That's reason enough for me to be on the other side.

[Dead]

Jesse Jackson was only on the bandwagon because he is a publicity hound. The same could be said of Randall Terry.

I guess that Jesse Jackson took a break from harassing corporations, and that Randall has taken a break from bilking his pro-life supporters out of money, and using said money for expensive vacations and alcohol.

[KellyRae]

Thanks for the cites.

Don't have time right now, but I'll take a look at these cases.

Quick question, though: do any of these cases involve a basis for a stay which the defendant in question did not previously have the opportunity to assert. That's what troubles me here - there is a new law which the court, for its purposes, assumes to be valid and constitutional. By refusing the petition for injunctive relief, though, the court effectively renders meaningless the very law that they are presuming to be valid.

[elwoodblues]

Just because it applies to only one person doesn't make it unconstitutional. Congress passes many private laws each year.

Bills of attainder are entirely different --- similar only in that they apply to one person.

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
Jesse Jackson was only on the bandwagon because he is a publicity hound. The same could be said of Randall Terry.

I guess that Jesse Jackson took a break from harassing corporations, and that Randall has taken a break from bilking his pro-life supporters out of money, and using said money for expensive vacations and alcohol.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, Jesse Jackson basically stayed out of this mess until her parents called him and asked for him... I am no fan of the man, but to be fair this had to be pointed out.

[TransientR]

Because in his mind the Word has come down from the Mount? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Frank

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Besides, he wasn't at the hospital full time. There were probably corporations to hassle in the area. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[waynethetrain]

I rarely agree with you about anything other than Poker, but I think you nailed this one.

[waynethetrain]

[ QUOTE ]
The case is about two things -- 1. legal guardianship its role and definition and 2. once the decision is made providing a better method of reaching the logical outcome (for example a lethal injection).

The courts have correctly ruled on the first

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you concede that it is possible that existing laws on guardianship in the state of Florida are poor?

I would argue that in cases where there is no legal document specifying the person's wishes, handing guardianship over to a spouse is not the most prudent course of action. Some spouses would not be nearly as well intentioned as some some families and vice versa.

Shouldn't the default be a more diverse group of very interseted parties like spouse, children, parents, siblings etc... Power sharing might be difficult, but that was the one thing about this case that made me crazy. I felt the parents didn't have nearly enough say about her care in the last few years. I think that's what made a lot of people very uncomfortable with the process.

[ACPlayer]

.... with or without this case.

Personally, I think that the spouse should be the person to step in for the incapacitated. If there are specific reason why the spouse shoul dnot then the judicial process should handle that. Remember that even in this case the Guardian Ad Litem, an independent authority representing the incapacitated went along with the spouse decision.

Also, as In uderstand it the private doctors did not disagre with the decision.

I am opposed to group decision making.

The biggest change in the law that is required is that if the decision is made that this end come quickly rather that in a prolonged manner.

[natedogg]

Cyrus, I was referring to this:

I think in cases like this I would be in favor of a year or two waiting period before the government allowed an assisted suicide.

natedogg

[natedogg]

Obviously, I'm referring to victimless actions. Your example of someone planning a murder is not the kind of "serious consequences" I'm talking about.

Even in cases like suicide, it is not a victimless crime. The families grieve.

By that definition anything that anyone does to cause their loved ones mental distress is a crime.


natedogg

[Dead]

You're right. I did not mean to have it come out that way.

I was just saying that it causes families a lot of grief. But often times people in that state think that there is no way out.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the argument in this case is whether or not she should be allowed to commit suicide. It's whether she ever actually wanted to commit it. The husband says she verbally told him not to keep her going; the parents deny it happened and insinuate ulterior motives on the part of the husband.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you hit the essence of the case.

Anyway, just got back from visiting family for Easter week and My Dad's 80th birthday and haven't been on the forum much. I apologize if the following has already been said.

If there is one important lesson most of us might agree upon, it's that many more of us need a living will. It protects you and it protects the person's reputation who may have to make a decision regarding whether to "pull the plug" however that is defined. This is especially true if you are separated from your spouse or in any way estranged from someone who may have to make that decision. Any decision against life will always be looked as suspect (and in this case it probably is but who can be sure?).

I've heard that web searches for information on assisted suicides and preparing a living will went up about 2000 percent the last few weeks. I'd like to find (or start a thread) asking for or describing where the best web site is regarding how to prepare a living will. I don't like talking to lawyers cold and trust the opinions of the good minds here on 2+2.

Regards,

Rick

[Alex/Mugaaz]

Did DS write all of this? I see he mentions himself personally in one portion. However, the writing style doesn't even remotely sound like him, at all .

[Lawrence Ng]

David, I agree 100% with your post.

But taking 14 days to die is just wrong...no matter what law or logic is behind it.

Lawrence

[LaggyLou]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what troubles me here - there is a new law which the court, for its purposes, assumes to be valid and constitutional. By refusing the petition for injunctive relief, though, the court effectively renders meaningless the very law that they are presuming to be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's Congress's fault, not the courts. Did you read the appellate court's opinion? Congress could have explicitly provided for a stay--and indeed versions of the legislation had provisions that would have done so that were taken out. Moreover, a stay would not have changed anything; the Schindler's had no case after they lost the trial.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does David start threads here, and then neveer return to reply to all the replies?

[/ QUOTE ]

Returning to my original point, David often replies to threads he has started in the Psychology, Theory, and WPT forums, when someone has posted something worthy of reply.

In two long threads here (this one and the Torture thread), apparently no one has made a reply worthy of his reply. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[gamblore99]

I was just browsing over this thread before sleeping and this popped out at me

[ QUOTE ]
Small comment #2: I do think there is a significant difference between removing a feeding tube and delivering a lethal injection (although I support both). For a physician to actively deliver a drug that causes death is quite different than witholding treatment and allowing nature to take its course. I think that distinction is self evident and far more than semantic.


[/ QUOTE ]

read James Rachels "Active and Passive Euthanasia", he really destroys and any distinction between the two.