Posted on 03/31/2005 3:02:03 PM PST by jackbill
Marylander Kept Alive For Nearly 20 Years Through Feeding Tube
BALTIMORE -- A Maryland case involving eerily similar circumstances to the case of Florida's Terri Schiavo led to changes in state laws.
Ronald Mack was kept alive for nearly 20 years through a feeding tube. As in the Schiavo case, his spouse fought to let him die while his family fought to keep him alive, WBAL-TV 11 News reporter Kate Amara reported.
Mack was newly married: a healthy, athletic father of two. But just after getting out of boot camp in 1983, the 20-year-old was involved in a car accident, leaving him in a persistent vegetative state.
Mack's wife, Dianna, claimed her husband wouldn't want to live that way, and she wanted his feeding tube removed.
But Mack's father opposed removing the tube.
SNIP
(Judge) Fader said no, and rejected the wife's petition and an appeals court then upheld Fader's decision, Amara reported.
Mack's father was eventually appointed guardian and the feeding tube remained.
(Excerpt) Read more at thewbalchannel.com ...
The appeal decision is at:
http://www.browngold.com/pdf/mack.pdf
If this was held up on appeal, and Terri's case was also held up on appeal but with the opposite conclusion, then it is a candidate for Supreme Court review in order to resolve the conflict in the rulings. It's too late for Terri though.
And this case was never cited by the Schindler lawyers -- maybe they needed much better lawyers (understatement).
Surprising is ultra liberal MD!
There is no mention on how the laws were in the state at the time.
They could of been applied correctly in both cases.
Understatement...no kidding.
I know it is not the popular thing to say but I think the Federal Judges ruled correctly on the pleading that before them according to the law. Unlike some on here, I want judges to rule on the law and not on emotions. In the long run we are all better off.
Florida and Maryland are each sovereign states, and each are entitled to make separate laws so long as they all fall under the powers delegated to the states by the Constitution, and so long as they don't conflict with the 14th Amendment.The SCOTUS has no more business ruling in these cases than it did in Roe v Wade.
I still don't understand.
Is it because the 14th Amendment ONLY outlawed slavery that it's okay to murder by "due process" if state legislation lays a foundation for a court to rule thus?
This is what should have happened in Terri's case, but apparently judge Greer is legally blind (or inept ... or corrupt) in more ways than one.
No necessary reason why the two state judgements have to be brought into harmony nationwide. The law just isn't the same in the two states. Which is quite natural, for two different jurisdictions regulated by two different legislatures.
And the hypocrisy of the liberals in this area is all we should be talking about. They no longer have any grounds to stand on in abortion law. States should decide. We should use their hypocrisy and the hypocrisy of the liberals to push for change in these other areas. We lost on the Shiavo issue so fine. Let's make this states' rights thing stick. If the feds have no business butting in when the issue is about the life of a disabled women, then they have no business anywhere else. I give us on the Shiavo issue. The glorious liberals were right. So may they live by it from here on out.
This whole "kept alive through feeding tube" business gets me.. like you and I are "kept alive through mouth feeding".. nothing extraordinary except the way we take in nutrients..
By the way, the aunt of the young man in question called in and mentioned that the wife stood to get some money in the event of the husband's death. The judge seemed reluctant to discuss that aspect.
Now wait a minute. He had a feeding tube, not a room full of life supporting machines. What's with these people. Food is food no matter what the form. It's ok for the wife to eat every day of those 20 years, but not him?
"And the hypocrisy of the liberals in this area is all we should be talking about. They no longer have any grounds to stand on in abortion law. States should decide."
WOW!! I wonder how come none of us other genius' have not thought this thru.
This is great. Will NEVER happen but would sure put the libs/dems on the defensive. Let them try to defend both positons.
Can't wait to hear their tortured logic as to how these 2 are not the same.
Thanks
Great point! I love your way of thinking and the argument we should be using to get abortion back to a States Rights issue. Brilliant strategy.
Askel5, you must be confusing me with somebody else. My position is simple, coherent and constant, the Constitution demands the federal government protect individual rights. The preeminent right is the right to life and I believe that includes unborn babies.
Mr. Mack was obviously a lot more fortunate than Terri (I do not want to pin the last name of her tormentor to her). I would hope that no other disabled person has to suffer as Terri has. Allowing such a person to live their natural life harms no one; killing such a person dehumanizes us all.
It would seem to me that a law that allows certain classes of people to be actively killed but didn't allow the killing of everyone would be a flaming violation of the equal protection clause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.