The Schiavo case; separation of church-state abuse

Only the living has the gall to fight to keep somebody that's brain dead alive by forced feeding.

However, regarding the fundamentals of this situation, it is no violation of separation of powers or anything else for the legislature to regulate euthanasia, which is the sort of law that would be most appropriate here. I would like to see a court rule that any law regulating euthanasia is automatically unconstitutional, and then back it up with something that the Constution actually says.

A persistent vegetative state, which sometimes follows a coma, refers to a condition in which individuals have lost cognitive neurological function and awareness of the environment but retain noncognitive function and a perserved sleep-wake cycle.

It is sometimes described as when a person is technically alive, but his/her brain is dead.

If Terri is PVS (Permanent Vegetative State), she is brain dead....

I never said anything about the legislature not being able to regulate euthanasia. They can but all the laws about euthanasia can't insert a feeding tube back into Terry Schiavo since they would violate the Florida state constitution concerning the court decision on Schaivo.

The "only" brain activity is her ability to sleep and wake somewhat normally. She responds to no external stimuli - no matter how hard her parents wish it so.

Neurologists say after six months in PVS, the likelyhood of recovery is probably impossible. I agree.

If a law were passed forbidding euthanasia for any person in her situation, then the basis of the court ruling would be defunct, and they would have to re-insert the feeding tube.

First of all, I believe there is some disagreement about whether she is PVS.

Quote:

If a law were passed forbidding euthanasia for any person in her situation, then the basis of the court ruling would be defunct, and they would have to re-insert the feeding tube.

Actually no, the lower court ruled that the original law violated Schaivo's privacy to refuse medical treatment under the Florida constitution. That ruling would still stand. That particular ruling wasn't appealed because the law was tossed on other grounds. The court would toss that new law out very fast based on the exact same reasoning.
That was my original point. If the legislature keeps attempting to interfer, it makes it harder and harder for the courts to be lenient to their attempts.

However, I do not believe there is any evidence that she did refuse treatment.

Quote:

However, I do not believe there is any evidence that she did refuse treatment.

Nor do you have any evidence that she said she wanted treatment. Because you have no evidence either way we are forced to listen to the person most likely to have that evidence, her husband.

Sorry but hundreds of years of law going back to English common law gives him that right. You can't take it away without evidence.

Sorry, but an involuntary laugh came out after reading the following article. Quote, "There are some congressmen that are trying to stop this bill," Ms. Schiavo's mother, Mary Schindler, told reporters outside her daughter's hospice. "Please don't use my daughter's suffering for your own personal agenda."