Replies

get the option that a doctor can over-rule the living will if needed. Which may already be done in Fla. according to the following..... "They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care. "

What is the source of your quote? I certainly don't agree with that. What the heck if the 'Bioethics Network'?

The Courts can and do enforce the wishes of the declarant. They should not become the instrument of some 'social policy' either way. I hope we can agree on that.

The source of the quote was unsourced document posted by mercyme on another thread. However, there was another later thread that did provide source information in the body of the thread. Don't know the other thread-tried to bookmark it last night but could not find how to do FR bookmarks and lost the thread.

Here is the summary of the document and the part above is in the last paragraph I think.

Summary-

"When Michael Schiavo first asked Judge Shames to allow him to remove terri's feeding tube in 1997, and then again in Judge Greer's court in 1998, the law at the time was not enough to let Greer order the removal of Terri's feeding tube under Terri's circumstances, so the law had to be changed in favor of Michael Schiavo.

In 1998, the florida legislature created the Florida Panel on End-of-Life Care for the purpose of revising the 765 statute for end-of-life issues. They were charged with coming up with the findings for changes in the law for the Florida legislature. Their findings were made law

Bill CB/CB/SB 2228, which revised the 765 as of October 1, 1999, also gave the authority to the End-to-Life panel to make findings for the legislature and that these findings were to made into law.

The legislature essentially gave them the authority to dictate to the legislature what changes to put in their bills. So the role of End-of-Life panel was not simply to make recommendations, but had the authority to determine what changes would be made into law.

The 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".

Geldart also details the the change in law that permitted nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment and the changes to life-prolonging procedures in the absence of advanced directives. Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".

And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).

They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care. "

Will have to research on Bioethics - only read a quick explanation of their purpose and apparently it may be part of the medical community and teaches their mantra in the medical schools. Will have to do a Google.

Many points of interest in the activities and the power grab of the end-of-life panel in the above.

This also shows that the patient's interests are not the primary concern and the panel is working in methods to circumvent living wills when not deemed suitable by physicians.

(This all is a massive snake pit and we are just beginning to delve into. Hopefully freepers will use their powers to expose what is going on to the light of day and then we can see if revision is required.)