Woman in Florida left to die in hospital

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes it is. The Supreme Court ruled on this long ago. What the Florida legislature and Jeb Bush have done is clearly unconstitutional. But it makes them look good to other brain stems, which are their natural constitutancy. Never mind that it's wasting money and resources to care for a bunch of mindless body tissue. But at least conservatives can feel better now that they've interefered with another person's life.

From what I heard this morning, the courts adjudicated the matter based on applicable laws, not the underlying constitutionality. The legislature just changed the applicable laws, making it quite legal.

At least until another full round of the courts is completed to decide on the constitutionality of the new law -- shouldn't take more than another thirteen years or so.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
My hair now reaches my butt.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
From what I heard this morning, the courts adjudicated the matter based on applicable laws, not the underlying constitutionality. The legislature just changed the applicable laws, making it quite legal.

That's state law. The Federal Courts settled this issue decisively two decades ago. People have the right to refuse treatment. In the event that they didn't leave a written record, the next of kin (begining with the spouse) have that right.

Even if she did want to live out her remaining days as a mindless vegetible, the Federal Courts ruled that her husband can make the decision to end her life (provided she left no record stating she wanted to be kept alive).

Just more proof that Conservatives like telling people what to do.

[Jules]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Just more proof that Conservatives like telling people what to do.

Uhm...no. Because in this instance the parents don't want the treatment refused. Who should have the right to decide for her is a legal question. And the Florida legislature decided to change the law.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Jules

Uhm...no. Because in this instance the parents don't want the treatment refused. Who should have the right to decide for her is a legal question.

It's not up to the parents. It's a settled matter of constitutional law. All this Florida law does is prolong the suffering and denial of this family for a little while longer.

And yes, it is a matter of conservatives telling people what to do. This state is controlled by conservatives.

[Jules]

Perhaps this is a unique situation that the courts didn't anticipate.

[chequita guevara]

No, it's not. This would be in the same catagory as if Florida suddenly decided to outlaw interracial marriages. It's clearly unconstitional.

If Bunnygrrl went into a PVS, I, not her mother or father or anyone else, would have first and final say over whether or not to pull the plug and feeding tubes. I am her spouse, my decision trumps everyone elses except hers if she leaves a living will (and vice versa). The same for this woman's husband.

The state has unconstututionally interfered in a private family matter.

Just so you know, people in PVSs frequently appear to respond to the outside world. That's the brain stem. What makes us human, who we are, is all in the frontal lobes. When that's gone, so are we.

[monkspider]

I chalk this up as more proof that conservatives like to throw out the constitution when it doesn't fit their agenda.

[Ben Kenobi]

The state has unconstututionally interfered in a private family matter.

Suppose you left your 1 year old toddler alone in the house for a day. Would the state be interfering in a private family matter by charging you with negligence?

What makes us human, who we are, is all in the frontal lobes. When that's gone, so are we.

So if we cut away all the rest of your brain, you are still Chegitz?

What if you had no body to go with the frontal lobes, just the lobes in a jar.

Would you still be Chegitz?

[Jules]

So maybe the medical question is a bit murkier than we think. Both sides have doctors saying totally different things. I find it hard to believe that all of them are wrong about everything. So why not try therapy for a while, let the parents be with their daughter. And if it doesn't work that'll convince them that she's really gone, give them a chance to say their goodbyes, and then remove the tube. It would be better for Terri's memory if the husband and the parents had a chance to make their peace with each other instead of letting it end this way.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Suppose you left your 1 year old toddler alone in the house for a day. Would the state be interfering in a private family matter by charging you with negligence?

I knew someone was gonna respond this way. The difference is that the state is within its rights to interfer in this example, and we mostly recongize this is better for society. In the case of the FL woman, society has already said, this is a place the state may not interfere.

So if we cut away all the rest of your brain, you are still Chegitz?

Nope. I'd be dead.

What if you had no body to go with the frontal lobes, just the lobes in a jar.

Would you still be Chegitz?

Again, I'd be dead. Though the rest of my body and the brain stem might be able to stay alive if it was force fed food and water. But I'd be dead for all intents and purposes.

Assuming, however, that you developed a way to maintain a brain in a jar, then yes, those pieces of frontal lobe would be me. Although with no access to sensory data, I expect I'd go mad rather quickly.

[Ben Kenobi]

In the case of the FL woman, society has already said, this is a place the state may not interfere.

So society = courts?

I see plenty of people in society that objected to the decision to let Terri die just because her husband requested that she have the tube removed.

Nope. I'd be dead.

Well, maybe there's more to being a person than just a frontal lobe.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So society = courts?

Thirty years ago there was a woman named Karen Ann Quilin. Karen made the mistake of taking barbituates and booze together, and consequently melted her brain. She was effectively brain dead. For ten years, her parents fought in the courts, people marched, gathered peitions, argued in legislatures, etc. We won that fight.

I see plenty of people in society that objected to the decision to let Terri die just because her husband requested that she have the tube removed.

That's because, like you, they don't understand how PVS works. Also, many people feel that life should be preserved, even if the person inside the body is long since gone. They care more for the form than the essence, a typical conservative problem.

Well, maybe there's more to being a person than just a frontal lobe.

No, there's more to being alive. If I tak out your heart, you're dead. If I destroy your frontal lobes, your body will survive, but you will have ceased to exist.

[Jules]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So society = courts?

I see plenty of people in society that objected to the decision to let Terri die just because her husband requested that she have the tube removed.

I think that might be part of what's driving this. There seems to be a public perception that the husband is a jerk: letting his lawyers speak for him, denying Terri last rites, forbidding the parents to be with their daughter when she dies. It's this perception that has led to unsubstantiated rumors such as the husband may have abused Terri and tried to strangle her. When people feel wronged (even if their perception is in error), they want to do something about it. And when they're told they can't, they get angry. And as we witnessed in California, when people are angry, sometimes they do incredibly stupid things.

[Jules]

A step in the right direction.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/22/coma.woman/index.html

Terri Schiavo's husband grants her parents visitation rights
Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Posted: 9:11 PM EDT (0111 GMT)

PINELLAS PARK, Florida (CNN) -- The husband of Terri Schiavo, a brain-damaged woman at the center of a Florida right-to-die controversy, dropped his objections Wednesday to letting her parents visit her, attorneys said.

It was not immediately clear when Bob and Mary Schindler and Terri's siblings would be allowed to visit. They will not be entitled to updates on her medical condition.

Terri was moved late Tuesday to Morton Plant Hospital in Clearwater after Gov. Jeb Bush ordered her feeding tube reinserted. Throughout Wednesday, she was being rehydrated intravenously in preparation for reinsertion of the feeding tube.

The parents and Terri's husband and legal guardian, Michael Schiavo, have been at the center of a lengthy and contentious battle over whether Terri should be kept alive indefinitely in a persistent vegetative state with the feeding tube, as the parents want, or allowed to die, as the husband wants. A court ruled that the tube could be removed last week, but the state Legislature quickly passed a law giving the governor the right to intervene.

In another development, David Demeres, the chief judge of Pinellas County Circuit Court, ordered lawyers for both sides to reach an agreement within five days to designate an independent guardian for Terri, as required under the law signed by the governor.

The new guardian would become Terri Schiavo's advocate in legal proceedings, but Michael Schiavo would remain the decision-maker.

If an agreement cannot be reached, Demeres said, he will appoint Dr. Jay Wolfson, a professor of health and law at Stetson University, as the guardian. Wolfson also works for the College of Public Health at Florida State University and the College of Medicine at the University of South Florida.

The law passed by the state Legislature Tuesday and quickly signed by Bush authorized the governor to issue an executive order reinserting the feeding tube and said a "guardian ad litem" should be appointed to the case.

A guardian ad litem is a person appointed by the court to represent the best interests of one or more children in a court action that may affect them. "Ad litem" is Latin for "for this litigation."

It'd be good to see some reconciliation between the parties at this point.