Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Quote, "... if the ethics committee agrees with the team, the hospital will be authorized to discontinue the disputed treatment (after a 10-day delay, during which the hospital must help try to find a facility that will accept a transfer of the patient)."

This can have only one motivation; money.

So the only point being made in this regard is that you can't deny rich people care because they can just go somewhere else and pay for it?

That's a no brainer. Always has been and always will be the case.

I think you have to careful when you talk about hospitals and money. They have a certain amount of money to spend, you want them to do they best they can for as many people as they can, and that calls for a certain level of rational realism I think.

Like trying to provide the best healthcare possible for low income Medicare recipients.

Probably...I'm not in the US so I don't understand your system very well.

I know ours is struggling already with the baby boomers getting older and older.

I guess what I was saying is: it is naive to think that every possible dollar will be spent to keep every possible person living for as long as possible.

I thought the point was Bush's flip flop on who has the right to decide ..... not who pays the bill ...

I can't see how there is a flip flop either. In the cases where care has been unilaterally denied the care has been deemed as inappropriate. In the case of Shiavo how could anyone deem feeding her as inappropriate?

The family decides= flip....... the hospital decides = flop

flip flop ..... both signed by Bush

Does that mean you can see how providing air to breathe could be inappropriate?

Quote, "The family decides= flip....... the hospital decides = flop" Then there's the Congress decides. What do we call that?

Geli-

The cases are different. I think you know that.

Drew-

I certainly can see how in some cases providing air would be inappropriate. It happens everyday.

Anyway I think I'm done arguing for the opposition. My personal opinion is that Terry should have been left to die years ago and this whole kerflufle is all about politics on both sides. I'm gonna try and go back to just reading along.

It may be about politics to some, but there is right and wrong and a family's right to make their own decision about a vegetative family member. The politics enter when people want to subvert it either for political gain or misplaced altruism.

Focus on the issue before the court ....who decides when to pull the plug. That is the same in both. If not, please explain your reasoning.

Geli-

The case in both is that the family gets to decide, unless, the treating doctors determine that the treatment is inappropriate. In which case they may unilaterally discontinue treatment. There is no flip flop on Bush's part because the doctors are not the ones who wanted Terry's treatment to stop, it was her husband ie. her family.

Debra writes:
I'm sorry, I don't see where either decision reached this conclusion. This is your conclusion not the courts. The court said that the state may require clear and convincing evidence. That is NOT the same thing as the MUST keep the person alive if family members disagree. As a lawyer you should understand the legal meaning of the word "may". It is not a requirement.

Because your conclusion is YOUR conclusion and not the courts it makes your resulting argument not valid.

As I have said before. The state has an interest to keep the person alive. THe person has a 14th amendment right to refuse treatment. It is up to the court to weigh those 2 conflicting issues. The Florida courts did that. Because there is no requirement that the court has to meet your standard you have little argument here. Until you can present evidence that the court failed to meet the Florida standard you can be assured no appeals court will hear your argument. Is there a Florida law that requires "clear and convincing" evidence? Did the court violate that law? I see no evidence supporting your contention.

Bull.

Debra -

The USSC is not the only court that sets precedent on issues. The USSC often cites rulings in other courts for its reasoning. That is precisely why I posted the quote I did from the Cruzan case. The USSC court said it is quite proper to infer the 14th amendment right to refuse treatment exists. Once that right exists then it also leads to the same conclusion that an incapacitated person does not lose that right and can have it made for them by a guardian. As before, the state can weigh the state desire for life with the 14th amendment right to refuse treatment.

This leads us back to the same thing. THe court weighed this issue and reached a conclusion that you disagree with but don't have any evidence to dispute. Why do you think the Fed Circuit court and the Fed Appeals court have rejected the request for a stay? The Circuit court said there was little evidence of her parents winning the case. I am guessing for the exact reasons I am outlining here.

edgar, Who is your "Bull" directed to?

In the legal world. A feeding tube is exactly the same as a respirator. Both are mechanical means to keep a person alive. I posted the part of a Supreme Court ruling that states that earlier.