Posted on 09/18/2005 1:25:48 PM PDT by Crackingham
For those who don't know the Commandments .. it would be nice to list them; people might get the point then.
I likely don't understand the ethical and legal aspects of "Stand of Care" as well as you do. In my simpleminded view, the Schiavo case does not impact "Standard of Care," because the doctors would have continued to feed her, or would have pulled the plug, depending only a court order to make the difference. IMO, the bias should be to continue food and water, unless there is evidence that the patient does not want food and water. Even then, I think it is morally wrong to facilitate suicide, but that is not a point I want to argue now.
Schiavo shows the power of a legal finding of a patient's wishes to forego food and water (see also Browning), and the difficulty in civil law process to reverse that finding.
Even without Schiavo, some in the medical profession now choose to dehydrate patients based on quality of life calculus. From a medical-ethincal point of view, I don't see the Schivo case as any more than reinforcing a pre-existing bias of some medical practitioners.
the Schiavo case set a new legal precedent for allowing the court to override accepted "Standard of Care".
No, it didn't set the precedent. The legal precedent was already set in Florida, see Browning. It was also set in Missouri, see Cruzan.
"Apples and oranges, dear."
Sorry but it's not that cut and dry. The Schindlers and Michaels had a falling out over the lawsuit settlement money...that is, it was, at least in part about money.
Much simpler than my previous; but certainly true in both a legal and moral sense - the patient chooses his own care. I think what you are saying is that when the law and medicine disagree, the law has superior force. In this case, the law justifies its superior force on finding the wishes of the patient.
The medical profession also claims to respect the wishes of the patient.
Ergo, in principle, if the legal finding of fact is correct, there is no conflict between the lawyers and the doctors. The law and the medical community are satsfied they are doing the right thing - respecting the patient's wishes.
Basically, you are saying that the bias in the medical profession is to provide food and water. I used to think that was true, but based on comments from medial practitioners in the wake of the Sciavo case, I now think the medical profession is seriously divided on the matter.
The legal profession, OTOH, is all too willing to facilitate wrongful death by legal process - and has yet to admit that civil procedure has the flaw that I described in an earlier post.
It still doesn't explain why you are comparing the Schindlers to Cindy Sheehan.
Look, I know you refuse to listen, but one more time: MS borrowed money from the Schindlers for Terri's care, until the lawsuit ran its course. He also borrowed money for living expenses, and promised to pay back the money. The Schindlers went into hock to arrange that there be enough money for both Terri and Michael. After MS won the lawsuit, all of a sudden he remembers that "Terri didn't want to live that way". His sister even testified to this, as her best friend. Terri's best friend was a coworker. They were planning on sharing an apartment, when Terri could divorce MS.
The Schindlers were horrified when MS pulled this on them. It wasn't the money, it was the broken promise to use the money to take care of Terri, instead of using the money to hire attorneys to have her put to death. At that point, I don't even think they remembered that he owed them money. You know, I think that's where it comes in where they encouraged him to date. Those poor people thought he'd just find someone else, and leave Terri alone.
You damn skippy they had a falling out over the lawsuit money. If that was your kid, wouldn't you?
Well, maybe it will be so bad, it won't even get published.
Just like John Kerry. And the public didn't believe him either.
I appreciate that compliment. Many of the statements there are summaries of complex legal rationales, so some parts of the piece serve better to jog my memory than to express my logic.
I'm a firm believer in the wisdom of strict constructionism by the courts, and have been for a long time because I've seen over the past few decades the way that judges use the concept of a "living document" to cherry pick what they wish to follow in both statutory law and Constitutional law.
I've opined on that as well. Legislatures hold the remedy to runaway judges (impeachment), and the voters choose the legislators. If the voters had half a brain, the legislators would figure out they (the legislators) better impeach some judges, otherwise the voters would find new legislators.
We have a society that is degenerating due to pressure from many directions. Very few people left who have both a strong moral underpinning (i.e., don't rely on the law for every solution and remedy) and an understaning of the basic principles of Constitutional Republic.
The Schiavo case, reduced to its essence, represents a failure that is deeper than Con Law. It is a failure of judicial principle and moral principle, to protect life. And the loss of that insight is a symptom of a deeper dysfunction.
The real truth from Mutt Schiavo: I out a pillow over her head, she was dying to slowly by starvation
"put" sorry
He should send O.J. a copy and then they can compare notes.
Another Harry Potter book no doubt, full of witches and goblins. Atty deathknell comes to mind.
The generic problem for the law is to do the right thing, while admitting that sometimes its conclusions may be incorrect. The legal system has a wide range of standard of error - tolerating mistkes more often when only money is at stake, less often when the subject is a criminal conviction - and much much less tolerant of error when the state is invoking capital punishment.
But always, the law aims to accurately determine and carry out the wishes of the people before it.
In Western civilization, it used to be that life was valued above all else. Now, both the law and the populace arrogate to themselves the right to choose death when life is justified. That is "playing God," taking a prerogative that is not meant for humans, in my book.
I think of it as "Man over God." A human belief that humans can "create utopia" with reference only to man-made law, etc. Situational ethics. Absence of moral absolutes.
That was the major point I picked up during my read of Fuhrman's book - that being Michael Schiavo never could stick to one story during that fateful morning. Because Furhman was able to easily point that out as a problem, that issue alone was the nail in the coffin concerning Mr. Schiavo being the suspect - in my own mind. I agree also that Schiavo will probably never relate the events of that morning in a book cuz then he would have a problem trying to cover all his stories from over the years.
I remember that the Vet didn't want to do it because he could of found homes for them. Michael insisted on their death....all in court testimony.
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.