Bush signs emergency law to preempt state courts ref Terry Schiavo

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH
AFAIK the ruling was based upon the removal of "treatment" (based upon court acceptance of evidence that she would not have wanted to live under these conditions). Providing food and water is not "treatment" however. The removal of food and water to an individual under these conditions is euthanasia and no different than suffocating her with a pillow.

This woman can't feed herself nor can she drink without assistance- that assistance is treatment. A feeding tube is no different that providing oxygen- both are cases were a basic function has to be substituted medically.

[GePap]

This is the law, for all to read. I shall bold those sections I find most disturbing:

SECTION 1. RELIEF OF THE PARENTS OF THERESA MARIE SCHIAVO.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida shall have jurisdiction to hear, determine, and render judgment on a suit or claim by or on behalf of Theresa Marie Schiavo for the alleged violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution or laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 2. PROCEDURE.

Any parent of Theresa Marie Schiavo shall have standing to bring a suit under this Act. The suit may be brought against any other person who was a party to State court proceedings relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain the life of Theresa Marie Schiavo, or who may act pursuant to a State court order authorizing or directing the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life. In such a suit, the District Court shall determine de novo any claim of a violation of any right of Theresa Marie Schiavo within the scope of this Act, notwithstanding any prior State court determination and regardless of whether such a claim has previously been raised, considered, or decided in State court proceedings. The District Court shall entertain and determine the suit without any delay or abstention in favor of State court proceedings, and regardless of whether remedies available in the State courts have been exhausted.

SEC. 3. RELIEF.

After a determination of the merits of a suit brought under this Act, the District Court shall issue such declaratory and injunctive relief as may be necessary to protect the rights of Theresa Marie Schiavo under the Constitution and laws of the United States relating to the withholding or withdrawal of food, fluids, or medical treatment necessary to sustain her life.

SEC. 4. TIME FOR FILING.

Notwithstanding any other time limitation, any suit or claim under this Act shall be timely if filed within 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 5. NO CHANGE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to create substantive rights not otherwise secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States or of the several States.

SEC. 6. NO EFFECT ON ASSISTING SUICIDE.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to confer additional jurisdiction on any court to consider any claim related--

(1) to assisting suicide, or
(2) a State law regarding assisting suicide.

SEC. 7. NO PRECEDENT FOR FUTURE LEGISLATION.

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

SEC. 8. NO AFFECT ON THE PATIENT SELF-DETERMINATION ACT OF 1990.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the rights of any person under the Patient Self- Determination Act of 1990.

SEC. 9. SENSE OF THE CONGRESS.

It is the Sense of Congress that the 109th Congress should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care

So in essence Congress is telling the Federal courts to ignore what went on in State's Court and disregard their rulings and findings. Its absurd.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


This woman can't feed herself nor can she drink without assistance- that assistance is treatment. A feeding tube is no different that providing oxygen- both are cases were a basic function has to be substituted medically.

So your position is that anyone who cant feed themself is being "treated" and that such "treatment" (sustenence) may be removed under certain court-defined circumstances. Are you telling me that you dont see the potential problems with that?

[Imran Siddiqui]

That would be a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause, would it not?

No, it'd be a violation of the principle of res judicata (once a case is done, it's done... no retrying on the same facts). Full Faith and Credit is between states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Also in the law:

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

It's incredibly unconstitutional (violates the seperation of powers). How can they get away with such claptrap is beyond me.

[SpencerH]

Its pretty clear that it's a piece of rubbish and will be tossed as soon as it's challenged.

[GePap]

Originally posted by SpencerH


So your position is that anyone who cant feed themself is being "treated" and that such "treatment" (sustenence) may be removed under certain court-defined circumstances. Are you telling me that you dont see the potential problems with that?

No, not really. Most people who can;t feed themselves can communicate their wishes, and thus still make decisions. BUt people in vegitative and commatose states are different, and then it becomes an issue of the expressed prior whishes of the patient or the rights of the legal guardian.

This has been in the courts for 7 plus years- the feeding tube was first ordered removed in 2000. This has been litigated extensively, and no, no "precedent" has been set at all, except by Congress.

[Mr. Harley]

Thanks Imran, I knew the concept - res judicata - but I could not remember the technical term. Please keep posting the technical info on this, it helps the thread stay focused.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Also in the law:

Nothing in this Act shall constitute a precedent with respect to future legislation, including the provision of private relief bills.

It's incredibly unconstitutional (violates the seperation of powers). How can they get away with such claptrap is beyond me.

Simple. The Yankees won the damn war. Us Southerners kept telling ya'll, but ya wouldn't listen.

[Mr. Harley]

Plato - that's what I find scary about the neocons and their allies, people like DeLay, Gingrich, and Rove. They make it all about winning.

Democracy is based not only on institutions, but on processes. In the push for primacy, and the unfettered power to reshape the country in a way they know is good for it, they are willing to dismantle and attack those processes that protected them when they are out of power.

That puts democracy at risk. Remember, Hitler used a loophole in the Weimer constitution to seize power. I AM NOT comparing the Republicans to the Nazis. What I am saying is that if you start tearing downt the processes, in enough time you have dismantled the foundation of democracy, and you find yourself in the first crisis suddenly loosing the freedoms we hold so dear.

Look at the various cases coming out of 9/11 and The Patriot Act. Before you say - but see, the checks and balanced worked - look at the neocon strategy to put idealogues, not justices, into the courts. If you had all nine justices killed in a terror attack, and Bush got to unilaterally nominate all nine under the current system - how far would you trust the courts to uphold your freedom?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Tuberski

Wedding vows say "til death do us part", not, " til your wife is in a vegetative state."

When you have PVS you are pretty much dead in every way that matters.

[DinoDoc]

Neocons don't have a domestic strategy (I don't know why this has to be continually pointed out) shawn. So I fail to see what the theory (as bollocks as it is) has to do with this thread.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap


No, not really. Most people who can;t feed themselves can communicate their wishes, and thus still make decisions. BUt people in vegitative and commatose states are different, and then it becomes an issue of the expressed prior whishes of the patient or the rights of the legal guardian.

At a guess I would say that there are many 10's of thousands of people in this country who cannot feed themselves and are incapable of making any decision about their situation. In addition to the cases of mental retardation of various types, all one need do is look into any nursing home to find victims of alzheimers, other dementias, and age. If food is defined as 'treatment' then there is nothing stopping any guardian (including the state) claiming it to be 'the wishes of the patient' and removing such 'treatment'.

This has been in the courts for 7 plus years- the feeding tube was first ordered removed in 2000. This has been litigated extensively, and no, no "precedent" has been set at all, except by Congress.

Legal precedent is set when a legal decision is made. If a court made that decision then the precedent was set at that time. That doesnt mean, however, that the govt couldnt define that removing food under similar conditions is (at best) euthaniasia.

IMO, we have to either accept euthanasia (or not) as a society. Court derived definitions of sustenance as 'treatment' is merely sidestepping the issue. Allowing the courts to decide these issues is cowardice.

[Docfeelgood]

This is so odd....
If Bush would put this same amount effort into saving the troops lifes....I wonder?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Dissident
Do you actually listen to his show? No.

Of course not, why would I? His website is usually full of propaganda, lies, and blatantly biased stories. His credibility is ZERO

You just go by what commie liberal websites tell you to say.

are you turning into Fez? Actually I used to read his website. After a while, I just got sick of his bull****.

He has a good show. you should have heard it today. He's against all this goverment intervention (both this case and in baseball).

oh boy, an anti-government nutjob... Now what redeeming value does his show have?

And yes I'm a democrat. But I'm not a person who closes his mind to what the other side has to say. Occasionally conservatives are right about some issues.

I have never come across a political group that is fundamentally wrong on so many issues. One wonders if they are purposely being dense. I don't close my mind to what they have to say... absolutely the opposite. The reason I vehemently oppose everything that is Republican is BECAUSE I HAVE listened to their views and opinions.