The Schiavo case and the right to die or live: should a government intervene?

Rock Climber

I'm watching the story unfold in Florida where a 40 something year old woman who has had many signs of human life(smiling,recognising her parents, sadness etc) yet who is technically a vegatable is being left in my view cruelly to die.

Should a state intervene in such a case where her guardian wants her to die because he says its her wish yet there is no living will?

Should a state support Euthanasia? Or should it aim to protect life to it's last gasping breath? In all the reports I've read or seen on this case,I've not heard much about the woman suffering, but she surely must be now in a slow starvation.

My own view is that I'm very ill at ease with this.On the one hand , ok there seems to be little or no quality of life there, but maybe there is and we have no sure fire way of determining it.The parents sure have though in that they have stated how happy she seems to see them when they come and visit.
Her husband possibly see's this as going on forever and he just wants to re-marry.I suppose thats a valid reason to kill her? I'm only guessing there of course and I doubt that he'd say such a thing publically anyway, but its been hinted at in some reports that I saw on the news.

It's a sad sad situation,I'd be wondering what people here think.
This is some of the latest information on the case where yet another court has decided the starvation must continue.

dermot_sheehan

The state has intervened. The state of Florida, through its courts service has made an independent determination that:
1) She is effectively brain dead, the smiles are nothing but reflex actions.
2) Her husband is an appropriate guardian
3) That she previously stated that she would not want to be kept alive by artificial means.

If she is brain dead, she can't feel any pain.

The question is whether the court made a proper determination, and whether the legislature can second guess that determination. It has been reviewed by several state courts on numerous occasions, and the federal court system recently had a look at it (after a special law was passed by congress to allow it), and it determined that there was nothing wrong with the state court procedures and her constitutional rights were not violated.

Whether or not there should be a presumption in favour of life (that is, a person shall be kept alive by artifical means unless they expressly laid done their wishes previously in a living will) is a valid consideration for the Florida legislature to look into. It was completley improper (and subsequently found to be unconstitutional) for the Florida legislature to intervene in an individual case. Similairy it was probabley inappropriate for congress to intervene in this individual case.

gabhain7

gabhain7 wrote:

It was completley improper (and subsequently found to be unconstitutional) for the Florida legislature to intervene in an individual case. Similairy it was probabley inappropriate for congress to intervene in this individual case.

Elected representatives?
How is it ever improper for an elected legislature not to determine on something like this?
I'm not really following this case at all but iirc didn't the U.S congress get something signed into law by the U.S president recently to allow an appeal?
I don't have time to google now, but I'd assume that this was out of sympathy for this case.
In which case given the speed at which they acted I'm wondering why they didn't rush some legislation to make it impossible to withdraw the feeding tube?
Or perhaps that would be unconstitutional?

I'm looking in Sceptres direction aswell for a comment as he has an extensive legal knowledge afaik.

dermot_sheehan

Earthman wrote:

Elected representatives?
How is it ever improper for an elected legislature not to determine on something like this?
I'm not really following this case at all but iirc didn't the U.S congress get something signed into law by the U.S president recently to allow an appeal?
I don't have time to google now, but I'd assume that this was out of sympathy for this case.
In which case given the speed at which they acted I'm wondering why they didn't rush some legislation to make it impossible to withdraw the feeding tube?
Or perhaps that would be unconstitutional?

I'm looking in Sceptres direction aswell for a comment as he has an extensive legal knowledge afaik.

It's improper for legislatures to intervene in controversies under adjudication in the courts. It would be like if the OJ trial was conducted by the california legislature. It's an interference in the separation of powers, The U.S. Constituinal convention recognised the dangers of legislatures changing the law to effect ongoing cases, it happened in colonial times and resulted in people appealing to politicians in legislatures rather then having the matter adjudicated in court.

There's nothing wrong with the legislature changing the law for future cases, but making post-facto laws determining rights would be unconstituional in my opinion.


Congress passed a law allowing the federal courts system to review the case. It did not tell them how to review it. The reviewed it under the normal standards (was a federal law or federal constitutional right violated). They held there was not.

you can read the 11th circuit judgement here, it outlines why no federal rights were violated.

MadsL

Anyone else see the irony in the fact that she was in a vegative state after suffering a heart attack resulting from potassium deficiency as a result of her cronic bulimia (any idea just how damn hard it is to get acute potassium deficiency - massive amounts of laxatives and vomiting) - now of course she gets to starve to death anyway. Seems apt.

The irony is that the parents after missing the fact that she was doing herself so much harm through her eating disorder now wish her to be force fed!

SkepticOne

One thing that bothers me about this is that because euthanasia is not legal in the US (neither is it here), the result is death through starvation and dehydration - a slow and painful way to go if there's any chance of consciousness.

It seems to me that this is an area where the law doesn't really make sense. If you are going to take some action that results in certain death, then you should do it in the least painful way. This would minimise suffering in cases where there is a possibility of awareness.

Prisoners are totally dependent on deliveries of food and water to their cells. It would not be considered acceptable if they were allowed to die due to lack of these supplies and I'm pretty sure the prison governor would be charged in these cases. The phrase "allowed to die" would not be used here.

Now, in the case of this woman, the argument could be made that because she can feel nothing, she will not suffer from this process. However, there must be cases where the person is suffering from undetected "locked in" syndrome where the patient is aware but can't move or communicate the fact of awareness. In these cases, where a decision has been made to remove feeding tubes, would it not be much more humane to end things quickly and prevent the possibility of unspeakable suffering however remote?

The denial of water until death would certainly not be considered an acceptable form of execution in countries where execution criminals is allowed.

I don't really have an opinion on the rights and wrongs of euthanasia, but I do feel that removal of tubes is de facto a form of euthenasia and if actions must be done to end life, they should be done in a fast, painless way. The law could do with a bit of tightening up here.

dermot_sheehan

IT's not euthenasia as it is not assisted suicide. You have a common law (and has been held in u.s. constituional right) to refuse medical treatment. She communicated before she entered her current state that she would not want such treatment. That has been taken as a refusal.

As far as pain is concerned, CT scans show that the areas of her brain which control consciousness have been filled with spinal fluid. Being in a vegetativ estate means she is a vegetable, her body's reflex actions will continue, the heart will beat, lungs will breath, eyes will blink, but no one is home.

SkepticOne

I'm not really questioning the application of the law in this particular case. That was not my point. My point was more that a law that depends on particular medical diagnosis, the distinction of one type of action being euthanasia and another that leads the same end result (although in an unspeakably cruel way should the diagnosis be wrong) not being euthanasia and also depends on the verbal communication of a wish to a witness is problematical.

If the law stated that in such cases where it is decided to remove feeding tubes with the result of certain death, then action should be taken to terminate life in a quick, painless way, then I would be a lot less bothered about this issue.

Ignore for a moment the specifics of this case. To me it would seem that taking action that will result in death - even if that action is the termination of feeding - is very similar to (if not legally the same as) euthanasia. So close, imo, that painless methods of ending life should be used.

I don't see how the greater good is being served by this particular law although I'm not disputing at this point the application of it in this case.

If I ended up in a similar situation to this person, I would rather it was in a country where, if the decision to end life (whether its called euthenasia or not would not make any difference to me) was made, was at least done in such a way that the possibility of a slow painful death was removed. I would support a law to this effect.

gabhain7

gabhain7 wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the legislature changing the law for future cases, but making post-facto laws determining rights would be unconstituional in my opinion.

I'd respectfully disagree.In my opinion a house of elected representatives should do what they want within reason if they feel thats what the electorate put them there for.
I don't agree with these unwritten rules whereby what a peoples legislature can or cannot do is determined by whats already there.It's inherently undemocratic to think like that in my view.
If its a technicality of a constitution change, then go to the people and ask for it, if they turn you down, all well and good,thats that.
But people ultimately must have their say.

TomF

I think people are missing something here. The husband of the woman in question has been shacked-up with a girlfriend for some years now and they have two children. It is reported that he won a settlement of US$1,000,000 to pay for care for his wife for her expected 50-year remaining lifetime. It is also reported he has spent US$300,000 on lawyer's fees to have his wife's feeding and hydrating supply cut-off so that she will die as soon as possible. He has a vested interest, if all this is true, in seeing that she dies immediately, if not sooner. No wonder he doesn't want to get a legal divorce from his wife and turn her care over to her parents.

BuffyBot

He has a vested interest, if all this is true

IF being the operative word. Be nice to see some sources.

Sand

I dont think Bush is too hot about this issue because he signed legislation allowing the removal of feeding tubes whilst Texas Governor as far as I know. That could come back and bite him in the ass. Tom Delay is trying to exploit it for political gain, like the same sex marraige issue in the Presidential elections.

I'd respectfully disagree.In my opinion a house of elected representatives should do what they want within reason if they feel thats what the electorate put them there for.

I dont entirely agree. The bible thumpers are setting, or at the least legitimising, a dangerous precedent. If the majority can force through laws without meaningful consultation with the minority then the tendency is for a more bitter political atmosphere and the rejection of the legitimacy of the government on the part of the minority. The Republicans might think its great being able to do this now, when theyre running the show - but when the wheel turns and the Democrats come back into power who will be whinging about states rights and remote Washington intefereing in citizens private lives? This is the last thing the U.S. needs.

And for what theyre worth, polls indicate that Americans do not support the Republicans inteference in the Schiavo case, or feel the feeding tube should be reinserted, and feel that the issue has been exploited by the Republicans for political gain. Most support the husband as well.

I think people are missing something here. The husband of the woman in question has been shacked-up with a girlfriend for some years now and they have two children. It is reported that he won a settlement of US$1,000,000 to pay for care for his wife for her expected 50-year remaining lifetime. It is also reported he has spent US$300,000 on lawyer's fees to have his wife's feeding and hydrating supply cut-off so that she will die as soon as possible. He has a vested interest, if all this is true, in seeing that she dies immediately, if not sooner. No wonder he doesn't want to get a legal divorce from his wife and turn her care over to her parents.

Darnit, I guess the 16 judges who have ruled on this case over the years never examined the husbands motives as seriously as the average tabloid hack trying to sleaze up a story. I guess they must have missed it.

Sand

Sand wrote:

I dont entirely agree. The bible thumpers are setting, or at the least legitimising, a dangerous precedent. If the majority can force through laws without meaningful consultation with the minority then the tendency is for a more bitter political atmosphere and the rejection of the legitimacy of the government on the part of the minority. The Republicans might think its great being able to do this now, when theyre running the show - but when the wheel turns and the Democrats come back into power who will be whinging about states rights and remote Washington intefereing in citizens private lives? This is the last thing the U.S. needs.

Point taken to an extent.
I've googled pages upon top of pages of this now and most of the stuff thats came up is indeed from the bible thumping fraternity, catholic sites and blogs.
There seems to have been plenty of time to discuss this issue, but its only lately that it's coming to the fore due to the news nature of the tube removal and court cases etc.

Michael Shiavo is estranged from the woman he is supposed to caring for , is living with another woman and has two children by her.
He has spent $500,000 on legal bills and stands to inherit the remaining $1million in funds granted for his wifes care when she dies.
He refuses to divorce her because he would lose his right to those funds as her parents would then get the guardianship.
He has also turned down an offer from a wealthy businessman who was going to give him the $1m anyway if he let the parents take over the guardian ship and let that woman live.
The businessman cited ongoing stem cell research and a future possible cure for Ms Shiavo as his reasoning.
Mr Shiavo refused this, saying that it's not about the money.

Somehow I doubt he's going to donate his inheritance to charity :rolleyes: but we shall see.
This smells to me like a guy who wants to get this nuisance out of the way and the courts are aiding him in his mission.

Darnit, I guess the 16 judges who have ruled on this case over the years never examined the husbands motives as seriously as the average tabloid hack trying to sleaze up a story. I guess they must have missed it.

Well I'm bewildered to be honest,I'm not familiar with the borders of what they were deciding on but if it was just on who has the right and what the law states, then he has the law on his side.I don't know if they are allowed to take into consideration what he stands to gain, if its just the guardians right to have the feeding tube removed that they were making a determination on.

That said,I wouldnt want to take from anyones right to be happy and have a partner but why cant he divorce his legal partner?

The other issue is the lack of a living will,I would have grave concerns in taking the word of what this man said, given what I've read this morning and I've read stuff from his and the opposing point of view.
I'm only going on a limited study of this of course and am willing to be convinced otherwise.
It seems to me a case where the state should be intervening, seizing the care fund and keeping the woman alive and not having her starve to death in this way,it is indeed cruelty in my view.
Her husband would probably have an uncontested divorce...

bonkey

SkepticOne wrote:

If the law stated that in such cases where it is decided to remove feeding tubes with the result of certain death, then action should be taken to terminate life in a quick, painless way, then I would be a lot less bothered about this issue.

But to do so would require an implicit requirement that doctors in the US (or at least in the State in question) be legally allowed to take life - in effect legalising some forms of euthenasia.

There's no clean answer to the problem - one where everyone's conscience and everyone's rights remain intact and unsullied. The US have chosen to go the path where they will allow someone to choose to refuse treatment entirely, just as they will allow someone to choose to sign a "do not recussitate" order, or to refuse so-called "heroic measures".

Now, one can argue that Mrs. Schiavo didn't sign anything to this effect. However, just as a guardian can give consent for surgery etc. when the patient is incapacitated, it can also be the case that a guardian can refuse aid on behalf of the patient. This can - and in this case did - lead to a court case to determine the right of the guardian to do so, and the courts determined that the husband's expression of what he believed his wife's wishes were constituted sufficient proof of her wishes, which the hospital is therefore obliged to honour.

Is it cruel to allow her to starve to death rather than dying quickly?

Firstly, its no crueler than denying a cancer patient or other terminal-case the rights and facilities to end their life quickly and painlessly should they choose. It is the fine line between permitting someone to die and killing them.

Secondly, I would imagine that should there be any question of pain and suffering, the hospital will administer whatever medication it can to ensure this is minimised as much as possible.

As to the whole "Seperation of powers" question, I found David Corn's article on the subject quite interesting. While he's an unapologetic Bush-Basher, and goes a bit overboard at times, his analysis of what the Republican's stand to gain out of their involvement in this case is interesting. Whether it constitutes their reason (or part thereof) for getting involved or not, I don't know, but its still interesting reading.

jc

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

This smells to me like a guy who wants to get this nuisance out of the way and the courts are aiding him in his mission.

If I understand it, he had two options that you made out:

1) Get an uncontested divorce, get the $1M. Walk away with no more complications.

2) Continue the legal battles, costing god-knows how much more money and time. Hopefully eventually win. Get up to $1M. Walk away with no more complications, except perhaps greater notoriety.

He chose option 2. I really don't see how this smells like anyone trying to get a nuisance out of the way, unless he was worried about being seen to be two-faced if he agreed to the compromise after initially pleading his case.

In fact, from what you seem to be describing, option 1 (once this businessman made the $1M offer) looks like a cleaner, easier win for everyone....

So why didn't he take it if he wanted the clean way out?

jc

Firstly I thought if he divorced, he didnt get the money because it's ringfenced for the care of his wife while she's alive-I'll try pull out the link I found for that, though a cursary glance at google found loads.
If he divorces her, then the money goes to the new guardians her parents.

I'd imagine,if he said he'd take the businessmans money, there may be a case to suggest that he all along was doing this for the money, whereas if he got the money by default via a will as the leftovers of an award then it's his.

The other thing I'm wondering about , is that the award money for the care of his wife could be used to pay the legal bills in his fight to have the food tube withdrawn.I'm assuming thats the case as he's legally entitled to take that decision but the parents are challenging it, hence the need to spend $500,000 defending it.
Thus he has no financial worries arising out of the court cases he's fought so far,his house or future income wouldnt be at risk if the "fund " pays for it.

TomF

I just read this excellent commentary on the Schiavo woman's case
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/408ytxle.asp?pg=2
The article seems to me to go to the heart of today's tendency to accept "partnership" [gag-a-goat] in place of marriage and the effect it is having on the loyalty of even spouses to each other.

"Perhaps we should not be surprised at the immovable desire of Terri's parents to keep her alive and the willingness of Terri's husband to let her go. Parental love and spousal love take shape in fundamentally different ways. Parents first know their children as helpless beings, totally dependent on their care. Husbands first know their wives as attractive, autonomous beings who both give and receive love, and who enter into marriage as willing partners. But to marry means pledging one's fidelity despite the uncertainties of fortune. The beautiful wife may become disfigured, the wished-for mother may prove to be infertile, the young woman teeming with life may be plunged into a persistent vegetative state. Marriage often demands heroism, and we can hardly condemn those who fall short of it. But we can surely fault those, like Michael Schiavo, who claim to speak in the name of loved ones they have abandoned, and insist that letting them die is what they desire or deserve.
...

"On March 18, 2005, the day her feeding tube was removed, Terri Schiavo was not dead or dying. She was a profoundly disabled person in need of constant care. And despite the hopes of her parents, it was unlikely that her medical condition would improve, even with the best possible care administered by those with her best interests at heart. But even in her incapacitated state, Terri Schiavo was still a human being, a member of the Schindler family and the human family. As such, she was still worthy of protection and care, even if some of those closest to her wished to deny it."

Victor you forgot to say something there...

bonkey

Earthman wrote:

Firstly I thought if he divorced, he didnt get the money because it's ringfenced for the care of his wife while she's alive-I'll try pull out the link I found for that, though a cursary glance at google found loads.
If he divorces her, then the money goes to the new guardians her parents.

From your post which I was referring to:

He has also turned down an offer from a wealthy businessman who was going to give him the $1m anyway if he let the parents take over the guardian ship and let that woman live.

It mightn't be the same million bucks, but Michael Schiavo has had the option that I presented (going by what you said yourself), and he chose to walk what I see as the harder path.

I'd imagine,if he said he'd take the businessmans money, there may be a case to suggest that he all along was doing this for the money, whereas if he got the money by default via a will as the leftovers of an award then it's his.

Right...but I was questioning your conclusion that he smells like someone trying to get the nuisance out of the way....after you had reached this conclusion by effectively showing that he had chosen the harder path which carried less guarantee of success and (presumably) a higher probability of less cash.

Thus he has no financial worries arising out of the court cases he's fought so far,his house or future income wouldnt be at risk if the "fund " pays for it.

Sure...but so what? That indicates that he's not losing money, but not that he's doing this to make money, or in any way make his own life easier.

Personally, I think the whole demonisation of Michael Schiavo as a gold-digger has either been a situation where the media have blown what is arguably a conflict of interest out of all proportion. The guy has been handed the opportunity to take the money and run. He turned it down, and yet we still see TomF suggesting we should all remember that he stands to gain monetarily from a speedy resolution, and unless I'm misreading what you wrote your good self concluding that by taking the tougher, less-certain-to-remunerate option he's looking for the easy way out.

Either this guy is very devious in his way of making a fast buck, or I'm missing something.

jc

MadsL

2 Questions;

1. How did he get a settlement to pay for her care as this appears to be the consequences of self harm?
2. Why did she get this settlement if she had a Living Will?

immovable desire of Terri's parents to keep her alive

Yeah, right - shame they let her try and starve herself to death. NOW they want her to be kept alive - for what?

bonkey

TomF wrote:

I just read this excellent commentary on the Schiavo woman's case
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/408ytxle.asp?pg=2
The article seems to me to go to the heart of today's tendency to accept "partnership" [gag-a-goat] in place of marriage and the effect it is having on the loyalty of even spouses to each other.

I dunno. It reads to me like an article which presupposes either that Michael Schiavo is lying (or misled) when he says what he believes his wife's wishes would be, or that even if it is true that the wishes of Terri Schiavo concerning her own life take second place to the decisions that society can make for her.

It then uses this presupposition that the situation is wrong to conclude that the situation is wrong. Hardly outstanding deductive reasoning.

jc

bonkey

bonkey wrote:

From your post which I was referring to:

He has also turned down an offer from a wealthy businessman who was going to give him the $1m anyway if he let the parents take over the guardian ship and let that woman live.

It mightn't be the same million bucks, but Michael Schiavo has had the option that I presented (going by what you said yourself), and he chose to walk what I see as the harder path.

[Inappropriate smiley]I think I'm choosing the harder path by getting into this in the first place based on a few googles [ / inappropriate smiley]

That would depend on what his legal advice was.Perhaps I'm being cynical, but,its jumping out at me here that the offer of an independent $1m would have exposed him as being in it for the money which wouldnt have been worth it,if his lawyers were saying this wont last much longer.
We dont know how tempted he himself was to take the money and run and I suppose It would be unfair to conclude that he was.I'm only offering my opinion here, the same as yourself and I'm not giving him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm even less inclined to give that benefit now after further digging because the offer was made on march 10th 2005 after 12years of law cases.Effectively he's already been on that hard road and it was near the end before that offer was made. I personally couldnt ignore the parents wishes either to take over the guardianship, if I was busy rebuilding a life for myself with another woman.
Ok there is the outside possibility in my view that he actually does feel strong enough about what he says was her wish not to be kept alive in a circumstance such as this, to fight such a long and expensive legal battle.
But again the cynic in me is saying, he's had this costed and its cost him less than $50k a year and once the tubes removed he gets the loot after a short starvation period.
Therein lies the smell for me anyway.

MadsL wrote:

2 Questions;

1. How did he get a settlement to pay for her care as this appears to be the consequences of self harm?
2. Why did she get this settlement if she had a Living Will?

She didnt have a living will.
As regards the settlements, they arose out of mal practice suits connected to a mis diagnosis of her anerexia-From the congress link above:

Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 after her heart stopped briefly due to a potassium imbalance doctors say was a result of anorexia nervosa. While the woman is able to breathe on her own, she has not had the full ability to feed herself. In 1992, Michael and Theresa won a combined $2.2 million in three malpractice lawsuits for medical misdiagnosis of the eating disorder. (August 1992 $250,000 in malpractice settlement; November 1992 $1.4 million in malpractice trial; November 1992 $600,000 in malpractice trial, according to terrisfight.org.) Her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler of St. Petersburg, Florida, sued for legal guardianship in 1993 of Theresa after they learned their son-in-law had an extramarital affair. The feuding families have been in and out of court for more than 12 years.

Yeah, right - shame they let her try and starve herself to death. NOW they want her to be kept alive - for what?

Well to be frank,it may have escaped their notice.And why they want her to stay alive? They might love her.

billy the squid

I have only been hearing bits and pieces about this, but one question. have they reconected her feeding tube or not yet?

the way I look at this if you were found to be starving a dog to death you would receive a hefty fine or a prison sentence. what makes it ok to starve this woman to death?

It's actually a main news item on the radio here this evening Billy and no they havent connected the tube, the parents have more or less exhausted every legal avenue and have now more or less given up.

It's poignant what you say about the dog and I agree with you.

Sand

the way I look at this if you were found to be starving a dog to death you would receive a hefty fine or a prison sentence. what makes it ok to starve this woman to death?

If shes braindead - and her doctors say she is - then she wont feel a thing. If shes not, then yes theres a real issue because I doubt theyd put her on any painkillers that might prevent her from "coming round". Unfortunately, the only person Ive heard stating shes not braindead are a Republican congressman/doctor who has an obvious political interest, and various media commentators. Again, 16 judges are satisfied shes braindead.

I've googled pages upon top of pages of this now and most of the stuff thats came up is indeed from the bible thumping fraternity, catholic sites and blogs.

Yep - the thing is even two thirds of poll respondents who described themselves as evangelical and conservitives said they felt Congress shouldnt have gotten involved at all. I think Delay and Co may have miscalculated on how this would play in the heartlands. Everyone views the situation as tragic, but not a matter for federal government.

Well I'm bewildered to be honest,I'm not familiar with the borders of what they were deciding on but if it was just on who has the right and what the law states, then he has the law on his side.I don't know if they are allowed to take into consideration what he stands to gain, if its just the guardians right to have the feeding tube removed that they were making a determination on.

Im not certain either, but it would stand to reason that in a case of conflict over guardianship, especially in a matter of life and death, the judges would examine who was the more valid "guardian" and that they were giving a true and accurate interpretation of the patients wishes. For all we know the woman might have been estranged from her parents, might have utterly cut them out of her life and her husband might actually believe he is doing the right thing by her to carry out her exspressed wish to him, despite him becoming Satans representive on earth to the tabloid media and a wide section of humanity who hear about the case. He is going to be a hate figure for the sort of guys who shoot up abortion clinics. For the rest of his possibly short life.

If he was a sleaze bag, why not take the 1 million dollars, ditch the soon to be ex wife and move to Mexico where a million bucks goes a long long way and hed be at most page 15 news?

mycroft

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/10042.html

Kinda sums up the level of debate in the US, and makes me realise we have a long way to fall before boards plum those depths.

An :eek: bit one pundit labelling a judge involved in the case as "evil"

I think it's absurd legislating a law based on one case where the topic has become so emotive. In situations like this, and say Sarah's Law (Sarah Payne, and the paedophile name and shame absurdity) the level of media hysteria means that genuine and honest debate isn't going to happen.

Ditto Congress trying to rush in legislation on this matter. This debate is too crucial and too important for everyone to arrange legislation in such a rushed manner, when it could potentialy effect anyone, and everyone.

As for the husband and personal opinion this is. Y'know I'm sorry, starting another relationship and having kids should not be shoved aganist him. If He genuinely believes his wife is brain dead, then he's not cheating. And if he was doing this for such a, frankly in the grand scheme of things, small sum of money, he could have been bought off years ago. Or made a tidy profit writing a book, or appearing as a adovcate for the religious right on such issues, a road to damacas conversation. If he's the kind of person people are making him out to bed, he 'd have seen those angles .

I see it, as someone who loves his wife, realises that she's gone, and wants to end a chapter of his life and begin a new one.

But more importantly I see this as further proof that the US is in many ways becoming a theocracy. The debate is being fueled by politics beliefs not by public opinion. And I'm worried that such a crucial piece of legislation is being created over the tug of war over one life.

Memnoch

i don't agree with disconnecting the feeding tube, I think legal euthenasia is a much better option in situations such as this.

At the end of the day families can be selfish and often want to force their relatives to endure suffering for their own sake rather than the sake of the person who is suffering.

I'm sure my parents would want to do their best to keep me alive if i was ever in a vegatative state, but i've conveyed very very clearly to my fiance that i would not want to live like that.

Unfortunately the majority of the "pro-life" groups act the way to do because of religious reasons. And it's simply another case of imposing their relgious beliefs upon society in general and everyone else in particular.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

bonkey

mycroft wrote:

http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/10042.html

Kinda sums up the level of debate in the US, and makes me realise we have a long way to fall before boards plum those depths.

I'm baffled how a show who's intended purpose is to satirise mainstream news can "sum up" anything about the US. Unless you're suggesting that the entirety of US mainstream media is - in fact - just a p1sstake

sovtek

Horribly enough...(sorry don't have the link at the moment) it wasn't even questioned when a child was taken off life support, against the parents wishes, because the insurance company thought it costs too much. You didn't see Bush cancelling trips to intervene in that one.

bonkey

daveirl's link above also has a reference to that, sovtek.