Posted on 07/12/2005 3:02:52 PM PDT by george wythe
Most Florida constitutional scholars, even the the high-power attorneys working for Governor Bush, disagreed with such a discredited analysis.
The inalienable right to life comes bundled with many other inalienable rights, such as right to liberty.
When an adult person decides to refuse medical treatment, the inalienable right to liberty supersedes the right to life. That's why when a Christian Scientist refuses life-saving medical treatment such as a penicillin shot, he is entitled to die of nasty, but easily curable infection.
Similarly, when a Jehovah's Witness hemophiliac refuses life-saving medical treatment, such as a clotting shot, she is allowed to die of terrible, but easily curable bleeding.
And such rights are not surrendered when a Christian Scientist is unconscious due to blood poisoning, or when a Jehovah's Witness is a coma due to blood loss. The previously expressed wishes of these adults are respected by the courts of law.
Therefore, when several alienable rights collide, both the US Constitution and the Florida Constitution provide the courts as the final arbiters of the person’s rights.
The governor of Florida has no business deciding when a Christian Scientist should be allowed to die. The governor of Florida has no power to decide when a Jehovah’s Witness should be allowed to die. The governor of Florida has no right to interfere when an adult Floridian decides to refuse life-saving medical treatment and die.
And you can argue all day long that pumping artificial chemicals through a tube that has been surgically implanted is the same as eating food, but your argument will fail over and over again. It’s the same argument that was used to force adult Jehovah’s Witnesses into taking a blood transfusion, since a blood transfusion was just “feeding” through the veins. Guess what? That argument was rejected by the US Supreme Court a long time ago.
Pardon my ignorance; I was not aware that Terri Schiavo was a Jehovah's Witness or a Christian Scientist.
The hell it wasn't. Schiavo was shoved around like a pawn by culture warriors on both sides of the aisle. That crazy husband of hers and his lawyer strutting around like a pair of self-righteous ministers, talking about her "right to die". Those sick idiots parading out front of a hospice for the dying, sending their kids forward with a cup of water to be arrested whenever the news media showed up with a camera. Jesse Jackson showing up at the last minute for his photo op.
Then there was that moronic memo that the Republicans put out. Ugh, the whole thing made me want to vomit.
Not political. Bah. Admit that it was enlightened self-interest, but don't lie to yourself and don't lie to me.
The fact that I mentioned those religions is because these legal issues have been heavily litigated by members of those sects. Therefore, the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment has been enshrined in American jurisprudence for a long time.
If you ever bother to read the controlling opinions in the Schiavo case, such as Cruzan at the federal level, and Browning at the state level, you will understand my post.
Until then, you just seem to quote and paste discredited opinions, without being able to present rational arguments to defend the state intrusion into an adult's decision to refuse life-saving medical treatment.
Gee - aren't you Mr. Erudite Smarty-Pants!
So there's "no controlling legal authority" to honor the credible pleas of parents to spare their daughter's life, but her philandering ex-husband is allowed to have her legally starved to death? And show me one reference that Terri Schaivo EVER expressed her wishes to "refuse life-saving medical treatment."
"Rational arguments"? "Discredited opinions"? You were born too late.
You would have made a great point man for eugencis seminars in the 1930's.
Just an emotional outburst without any constitutional arguments. Obviously, you've never bothered to read the legal opinions on this case, but you seem so sure to tell Governor Jeb Bush to obey your inferior legal counsel.
Btw, even though irrelevant to the constitutional issues, the facts of this case were extensively litigated. Additionally, the finding of facts by the trial court were upheld by the appellate judges.
Nevertheless, even if I disagree with the finding of facts by the trial court and the appellate court, I still have to confront constitutional issues before I make the silly assertion that the Governor of the State of Florida had the power to take custody of Terri Schiavo in defiance of state and federal courts.
And those constitutional issues have not been directly addressed by you.
I provided a lengthy legal and constitutional argument. You just dismissed it as not credible. It appears that you prefer to go along with the side which won the day, that's all. Legal positivism I believe it's called. Never mind principle. Would you consider Justice Scalia's opinions, when he dissents in a case, "discredited," just because his side did not "win?"
No. I completely agree with Scalia when he wrote a concurring opinion on a case similar to the Schiavo saga. Additionally, I also agree with Scalia when he refused to overrule the Florida state courts in the Schiavo matter.
The federal courts have no business interfering in a private individual decision to refuse life-saving medical treatment. Furthermore, when there is doubt about the individual's wishes, the state legislatures and state courts are the proper venue to solve these family matters. The federal courts have no business interfering in family feuds. That's the conservative position.
As Scalia wrote in Cruzan:
While I agree with the Court's analysis today, and therefore join in its opinion, I would have preferred that we announce, clearly and promptly, that the federal courts have no business in this field; that American law has always accorded the State the power to prevent, by force if necessary, suicide including suicide by refusing to take appropriate measures necessary to preserve one's life; that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored.It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.
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.