a new low in separation of powers

1. If this particular law is unconstitutional, the Florida legislature can easily pass a constitutional law outlawing particular forms of euthanasia.
2. Regardless of the intention of the question, if, as I believe, a woman was in the last stages of being murdered in a particularly cruel way, I believe that the moral aspects of the case greatly outweigh the legal aspects.

Re: Brandon


This statement makes your stance much more clear to me, Brandon. Let's talk about this. If she IS NOT aware of her own existence, then it would certainly be kinder to let her die. Agreed? She would not have a "life" in any sense but the most legalistic. However, in my opinion, if she IS aware of her own existence, then she must be suspended in some sort of hell where she cannot communicate in any way. I cannot imagine that anyone would want to be left in such a state for 13 years...much less that anyone would condone prolonging such mental agony. That is unimaginably cruel.

As to Dyslexia's concerns...I was always taught that the executive branch of our government does not have the power to overrule the judicial branch. I cannot see how Gov. Bush's executive order could possibly be constitutional.

Husband Challenge Constitutionality of 'Terri's Law" in
Oct 29, 2003
Husband's Lawyers Challenge Constitutionality of 'Terri's Law' in Florida
By Mitch Stacy
Associated Press Writer

CLEARWATER, Fla. (AP) - The husband of a severely brain-damaged woman on Wednesday challenged the legality of a hastily passed state law empowering Gov. Jeb Bush to keep her alive.
In a court filing, attorneys for Michael Schiavo contended that the law violates Terri Schiavo's right to privacy and the separation of power provisions of the Florida Constitution.

The statute, dubbed "Terri's Law" by Florida lawmakers, gave Bush the authority to order Terri Schiavo's feeding tube be reinserted Oct. 21.

Michael Schiavo has been battling in court for years to carry out what he says is his wife's wish to not be kept alive artificially.

His in-laws, Bob and Mary Schindler, have fought him, saying their daughter had no such wishes and is not in a permanent vegetative state, as a probate judge has declared. They say she is responsive and could improve with therapy.

Terri Schiavo suffered severe brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped. The legal battle over her fate is one of the nation's longest and most contentious right-to-die cases.

She went without food and water for six days under a court order which allowed her husband to withdraw the tube. But within hours of the Legislature's action last week, the tube was reinserted.

Florida courts have repeatedly affirmed Michael Schiavo's legal right to remove his wife's feeding tube. The state Supreme Court has twice refused to hear the case; the U.S. Supreme Court also refused to hear it.

President Bush said Tuesday that Gov. Bush, his younger brother, did the right thing in ordering the feeding tube reinserted.

This story can be found at: http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAF8WU0EMD.html

Re: Husband Challenge Constitutionality of 'Terri's Law&quot
[quote="BumbleBeeBoogie
They say she is responsive and could improve with therapy. [/quote]
==============================================

In every interview of Mr. Schindler, he has mentioned that all Terri needs is "therapy" and that her husband has not provided it for her.

Does anyone know what type of therapy might help Terri? If this therapy would be helpful, why haven't the parents chosen to provide it for her?

Because the husband is the legal guardian and he would not allow it.

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! The husband worked tirelessly for years to get his wife any and all possible therapy. See the most recent Newsweek article. Her family refuses to see the reality of this situation. There comes a time when you have to let go. The time is long past. There is no therapy, there is blind hope.

Passing unconstitutional laws, even with the best of intentions, is bad for this republic. Gov. Bush ought to said to his legislature, 'Thanks but I don't want to invade the PRIVATE lives of this husband and wife.' Family values rather than intrusive government, that sort of thing.

Suppose in an effort to aid the war on terror the Florida Legislature passed a law interning any foreign-born Muslims? (All the hyjackers fit that category.) Would that be okay? It would prevent other possible deaths.

Too broad? How about this? That no one on a feeding tube in the State of Florida can be removed from said tube without the permission of the Governor unless they can show that their case is different from Terri's.

And while we are at let's pass some more laws regarding this husband guy:
He can only drive a black car and then only Monday through Friday.
He can't leave the state for any reason.
He can't vote till this whole mess is resolved.
He is not allowed to order a double whopper at Burger King.
Control over his life is a matter for the legislature to decide on a daily basis.


Joe

Joe Nation -- I guess I didn't make my previous statement broad enough.
Terri's husband did provide various kinds of therapy, but as her guardian he would allow only therapy that he approved. Given the bad blood between him and his in-laws, that is to be expected.

Shoesharper
Shoesharper, exactly what kinds of therapy did Terri's husband deny her that members of her family wanted?

BBB

Thanks for the clarification, Shoe, some are acting as if this all started a week and a half ago, that the patient's condition is somehow fresh and not a permanent situation of over thirteen years.

The family (Terri's) seems to me to be enjoying their victimhood. They would love it if the husband would just walk away after a divorce. (How do get someone in a vegetative state to sign the papers? If the husband has POA can he sign them for her?) Then they could crow that they were ones standing tall and then moan more about their victimhood forever it would seem.
I would think Jeb would be opposed to such goingson, but now that he is a member of the family he must do his part.

A prediction for Terri
I predict that if, by some miracle, Terri regained the ability to speak, her first words would be "I cannot tolerate living like thisl I want to die."

BBB

BBB -- I don't know what kind of therapy the family wanted that the husband wouldn't allow -- and I'm not sure that Mr. Schindler knows, either. The family just has some vague feeling that SOMETHING will help Terri, so let's try everything. Seems to me that 13 years of denial should finally give way to reality, but not for these people.

Shoesharper
Shoesharper, I think you are right. If you truly love someone more than yourself, you would not want that person to suffer unnecessarily and think of what is best for that person, rather than your own grief.

Terri's family are exhibiting a selfish love.

BBB

Seems to me there is every possibility that the husband may love his wife and have been to hell and back seeing her body go through this.

ossobuco -- I would like to think that, but the whole thing gets complicated when you remember his girl friend, with whom he already has one child, and another on the way. They want to get married and can't while Terri is still alive. Divorce? They're Catholic.

In any event, aside from all that, I think the husband has more grip on reality then the family.

Terri's sad case and the family bickering is one example where "truth is stranger than fiction." I hope I never have to make a life/death choice for one of my family members.

I have no idea what he thinks. I just know that I would feel beyond terrible if my loved one lasted thirteen years in a vegetative state, my sorrow for (her) would be boundless, endless - speaking for myself, of course, as if I were a man, the husband. As far as moving on, he could move on any day of the week. Sure he could divorce her. But let us guess he might have loved her, and have some remnants of that deep caring left after all this time.

Of course he might not have loved her, or have been somewhat mixed in feelings as many people are. But I seem to be reading that few think he might hurt that she is kept breathing in this (to me) excruciatingly cruel way.

And I do see that dyslexia's question rested not in how we feel about the exact situation with all its different angsts to different people, but how we feel about the power separation.

Re: Brandon

Hi, Eva. If she is not aware of her own existence, then killing her would probably be an ethically neutral act. If she is aware of her existence, then we have no way of knowing what she thinks of it, and do not have the right to snuff that existence out. She might, in one of many possible scenarios, be aware of her existence, but not have the mental sophistication to compare it to her previous existence, and after a fashion enjoy being alive. And even if it turns out to be true that she is aware of her existence and does want to die, she probably does not want to die by slow starvation/dehydration.

In terms of the separation of powers, I can only restate my previous comments. First of all, if it turns out that Terri's Law is unconstitutional, there is nothing stopping the Florida legislature from passing a law stating that euthanasia by starvation and/or dehydration is illegal. Then the court must uphold the new law, since the courts can only uphold and interpret law. Secondly, to me, the legal implications are less important than the moral ones. Generally, I would gladly break a law if it were necessary to stop a murder in progress. Believe it or not, I find discussion of this case exceptionally distasteful, but, as you can see, I do feel strongly about it.

The upcoming court case bids fair to be a real donnybrook. This is a real hot potato, and various groups are weighing in on the side of the parents, including the ACLU.

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=16965

Stay tuned -- it's going to be a great show.

Shoesharper
Shoesharper, I think you had better reread the article link you posted. The ACLU has not entered the case on the side of Terri's family. It supports Terri's husband, Michael.

The organization entering the case in support of Terri's family is Pat Robertson's extreme right organization: American Center for Law and Justice (ACL)

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=7649

I'm sure you didn't mean to misrepresent the actions of the honorable ACLU, but mistakes like this can lead people to the wrong conclusions. Care must be taken in presenting the facts not to get them wrong.

BBB