Posted on 04/02/2005 10:11:31 AM PST by pickrell
The Federal Court including the Supreme Court interfere in STATE matters ALL the time, most recently striking down a law in one of the states requiring that children under 18 have parental notification prior to an abottion. It's a BOGUS argument.
That's exactly how I felt about all the anger about states rights. Has "of the people, by the people and for the people" been changed to "of the state, by the state and for the state" while I wasn't looking? It's like everyone forgot about the part of the clause that said "and to the people". What redress does an individual have, even a severely brain damaged one, if the federal government can't protect them from the tyranny of the state?
The hue and cry was each state should decide this issue for themselves. That means the value of a human life, a citizen of this country, can be worth more in Wisconsin than Florida or in South Dakota than Maine. That's just absurd. The notion that Floridians, whatever their condition, can be legally be starved and dehydrated to death is appalling. Ted Bundy was given a more humane death. Anyone that buys into the nonsense that Terri couldn't feel any pain, needs to watch the video where she's being poked on her back and visibly flinches away and cries out in pain. Other videos might be open to interpretation, but this one is clear.
At the very least there needs to be standards in place that protect the rights of the individual from the arbitrary whims of state judges and legislators. In the case of the Florida they literally allowed a panel of "experts" not elected by the people of the state, most of whom were proponets of "the right to die", MAKE the law that was put on the books. Imagine the 9/11 commission given carte blanche to make their recommendations into the law of the land. But, because this was done by a state, that's supposed to make it okay.
Forget guardianship issues, Terri wasn't even given the battery of tests that are considered standard in the field of neurology to determine whether she was PVS and assess the severity of her brain damage. We have standards of proof and protections from the state to the federal government that insure the rights of murderers given the death penalty because we want to insure they've been treated fairly and that all legal remedies have been exhausted. In Terri's case only half the tests (and the most superficial ones at that) were performed. Expert medical testimony was clearly agenda-driven and the "tie-breaker" had no experience with this kind of case. We can't even say with any certainty what her wishes were since there was conflicting testimony (even from her husband). Nevertheless, the judge was compelled to rule on what she *most likely* would want. In the hands of a corrupt judge this could kill you.
She was given no separate legal representation, instead her husband was allowed to use money specifically and LEGALLY stipulated for her care to argue on behalf of killing her. Were she a criminal, her sentence (because she WAS sentenced to death) would have been commuted to life in prison because she didn't have the mental capacity to aid in her own defense. The Guardians ad Litum who were to look after her best interests, however well-intentioned, had no experience working with the handicapped and could only issue a report with recommendations and walk away. For Terri, due process didn't even exist. In the entire legal system, not once was her rights as a citizen given even cursory consideration.
Sugar coat it all you want with words like "quality of life" and "right to die", it's state sanctioned killing no different than the death penalty (except that we allow our criminals to die a more humane death). This woman with no legal representation of her own, who surely would have divorced an adulterous husband were she able, instead was given over to him to do with as he wished. Yep, we've come a long way, baby! The only 2 people assigned to look after her interests, her guardians ad litem, were both concerned about her husband being given guardianship (in essence the power of life or death) over her because of this conflict of interest. However, without legal representation, without standard diagnostic tests, without continued therapy (if for no other reason than because she's a human being who deserves whatever treatment we are able to provide) our legal system regarded her with no more consideration than if she were a china hutch in an estate dispute. I wouldn't want that for any citizen. If part of a state's rights are going to include the power to kill innocent citizens then I damn well want the feds involved protecting those INDIVIDUAL rights guaranteed everyone. Either the constitution applies to every US citizen or it applies to none
Cindie
To support what you say I offer the following information.
Both my husband and my mother died of cancer. My husband was bedridden for two months (was a Rear Admiral - then after retirement, was a senior Gov attorney). The support care was entirely paid for by insurance to Hospice. We were swamped with aids and equipment. My mother, bless her soul, was 90 and in the "must use Medicare B" category despite the fact that she had insurance to back it up. Clearly Hospice would not make as much. My husband lingered for 2 and a half months. My mother was in care for a week because I very stupidly continued to give her pain medication at their direction even though she said she did not want it. I felt should follow their directions as they knew better. As I look back and I realize how little Hospice did on her behalf other than provide pain medication and someone to verify her death, she was expendable because she would cost them money. She entered Hospice on a Friday and died the following Tuesday. I know she was terminal, but until she entered Hospice she was walking around and talking and eating (not much, but eating). I will live with this burden forever, but I will never forgive Hospice. They knew what they were doing; I did not, yet I gave the fatal doses. You are right, anyone who is ill is in danger. The fact that you are terminal does not mean we have to "hurry it along."
Do not be hard on yourself -- they set you up and kept you in the dark. You only followed advice from people you thought you could trust. After the Schlinder Family -- thank G-d -- what is going on is now very clear.
I, too, was interested in the subject matter but I quit about 60% through after consistently having to reread paragraphs because I realized I hadn't paid attention to what they said. To much of a fight to read, for me.
However, I am sure the fault is mine and I appreciate the efforts of bright freepers.
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.