Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Old people that can communicate their wishes are protected by the 14th amendment, they can accept or refuse treatment on their own.

Debra, Big difference; Terri's case has been settled in the courts of our country. It was Terri's wish not to be put on life support confirmed by Michael and Terri's brother and sister - with support from professional doctors representing Terri and the state, and now decided by 23 judges - four of them federal judges. What is it that you don't understand about this issue - both morally and legally?

What about the old people who can't communicate their wishes? What about the senile old people who can't express their desire to be fed and who can't feed themselves? What if they need a healthcare aide to spoon feed them and to help them sip water from a straw? Can we presume that they would prefer death over life? Should we stop assisted feeding?

Are you saying that the right to life only applies to those people who can communicate their wishes to be fed?

In the Quinlan case, young Karen Quinlan suffered severe brain damage as the result of anoxia, and entered a persistent vegetative state. Karen's father sought judicial approval to disconnect his daughter's respirator. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the relief, holding that Karen had a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution to terminate treatment. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. at 38-42, 355 A.2d at 662-664. Recognizing that this right was not absolute, however, the court balanced it against asserted state interests. Noting that the State's interest "weakens and the individual's right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims," the court concluded that the state interests had to give way in that case. Id., at [497 U.S. 261, 271] 41, 355 A.2d at 664. The court also concluded that the "only practical way" to prevent the loss of Karen's privacy right due to her incompetence was to allow her guardian and family to decide "whether she would exercise it in these circumstances." Ibid.

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions.

In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state.

Quinlan was decided in NJ courts. It is quoted in Cruzan if you need some help.

We repeat for the sake of emphasis and clarity that upon the concurrence of the guardian and family of Karen, should the responsible attending physicians conclude that there is no reasonable possibility of Karen's ever emerging from her present comatose condition to a cognitive, sapient state and that the life-support apparatus now being administered to Karen should be discontinued, they shall consult with the hospital "Ethics Committee" or like body of the institution in which Karen is then hospitalized. If that consultative body agrees that there is no reasonable possibility of Karen's ever emerging from her present comatose condition to a cognitive, sapient state, the present life-support system may be withdrawn and said action shall be without any civil or criminal liability therefor, on the part of any participant, whether guardian, physician, hospital or others.

This quote is from Cruzan

Quote:

In the Quinlan case, young Karen Quinlan suffered severe brain damage as the result of anoxia, and entered a persistent vegetative state. Karen's father sought judicial approval to disconnect his daughter's respirator. The New Jersey Supreme Court granted the relief, holding that Karen had a right of privacy grounded in the Federal Constitution to terminate treatment. In re Quinlan, 70 N.J. at 38-42, 355 A.2d at 662-664. Recognizing that this right was not absolute, however, the court balanced it against asserted state interests. Noting that the State's interest "weakens and the individual's right to privacy grows as the degree of bodily invasion increases and the prognosis dims," the court concluded that the state interests had to give way in that case. Id., at [497 U.S. 261, 271] 41, 355 A.2d at 664. The court also concluded that the "only practical way" to prevent the loss of Karen's privacy right due to her incompetence was to allow her guardian and family to decide "whether she would exercise it in these circumstances." Ibid.

The Supreme Court of New Jersey will allow substituted decision-making in cases where the patient is incompetent IF the guardian and the family members AGREE that the patient herself would have made the same decision.


Also from Cruzan

Quote:

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The principle that a competent person has a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment may be inferred from our prior decisions.

The United States Supreme Court noted the problem: An INCOMPETENT person is incapable of exercising the right of self-determination.

Quote:

In sum, we conclude that a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state.

Again, in both the Quinlan case and the Cruzan case, the state's highest court rejected hearsay evidence to prove the patient's alleged wishes.


There is no requirement of the "clear and convincing" standard that you keep demanding. The states MAY do so. Please provide any evidence that the Florida courts didn't meet the Florida standard.

Some have suggested that intervening to keep Schiavo alive could be politically advantageous to Republicans by pleasing the powerful social conservative movement, for which the case has become a rallying cry for some. But even that community is split, with a few leaders saying the congressional action represents an unwanted, big-government intrusion into family and state decisions.

Bush said he had ``not discussed next steps'' with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's brother who has been talked about as a possible Republican presidential contender in 2008. The president's high-profile involvement in the Schiavo case, which Jeb Bush has made an almost personal fight for years, was seen in part as an attempt to boost his brother's future political aspirations.

Debra_Law wrote:

Great! Who should we kill next through court-ordered starvation and dehydration?

Let's look in all the children's hospitals and hospices throughout the country, make a determination of whom among the patients are incapable of recovering from their impairments, and discontinue their food and water.

After that, we can start culling through the patients in nursing homes.

But, where do we draw the line? Do we merely terminate the lives of those who require assisted feeding through a tube or all persons who are incapable of feeding themselves? I mean, none of those old bastards in nursing homes have any hope of recovering from the ill-effects of old age. Time to put them out of their misery so our time and money can be better spent on people with some modicum of hope.

That's a little extreme I think Debra, but maybe we could just assume we've already decided that "erring on the side of life" is a grey area based on the little boy in Texas who was just taken off life support and died against the will of his mother. Bush signed that bill into law while governor of Texas did he not?

Debra, Big difference; Terri's case has been settled in the courts of our country. It was Terri's wish not to be put on life support confirmed by Michael and Terri's brother and sister - with support from professional doctors representing Terri and the state, and now decided by 23 judges - four of them federal judges. What is it that you don't understand about this issue - both morally and legally?

It seems that the right to lifers who have their panties in a wad about Michael stating that Terri told him she did not wish to be kept alive by extraordinary means have been using the old tried and true "Nuh Uh!!! Your a big fat liar face!" defense. I remember that one from Portage Path Elementary School. Very effective.

But those 19 judges still voted in favor of Michael's claims after their considered review of the case. All of you "right-to-life" attorneys have lost this case, and you keep trying to re-do this case. Not going to happen; get over it.