Free Republic

Florida is going to put directives on Drivers Licenses. By doing so, it will take longer to get your DL here and they will have to hire more people so now the DEATH CULT is reaching right into Floridians' wallets.


No longer an organ donor. Refuse advance directives. Refuse a living will. My medical DPOA's, 3 of them, must agree in total.

Yeah, globalists. It isn't about Democrats and Republicans or liberals and conservatives. Globalists are who we should watch. Everything they do is to chip away at sovereignty of the country, with such things as CAFTA and FTAA.


And George Soros and his right to die projects.

** Terri's Law was in effect at the time and she was essentially under his control until everyone got scared. **

It's a crying shame that Terri's Law was over-turned. Terri's Law should have rescued Terri from michael's control for good, but for some reason it did not.

Jeb should never have allowed Terri to be returned to that hospice after her feeding tube was put back in, in 2003. She was not terminal, so why was she returned to the hospice? Hopefully I'm not mixed up on the chain of events.


To go back before Terri's law, Terri was grandfathered into the state statute changes involving PVS, life prolonging medical treatment, and terminal illness re: PVS.
That was a travesty.

I think Jeb wanted to stop it,

FYI........I was not the one who posted the above.

Read this for a better understanding as to how deeply the mindset is within this country.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/032906AssistedSuicide.html

I think Jeb wanted to stop it, but when his brother the President backed off, and when he got stabbed in the back by the Florida Senate (GOP majority), I think he didn't have a lot of choice. It would certainly have been a lot harder for him to do something and justify it legally, and so I blame him a lot less than W.



There has been several series of events over the past decade which created the perfect environment. Lawton Chiles was GOV at the time.

Personally, I do not believe they knew initially why they seemed hog tied at every turn. Some of Florida's legislators may not get it yet.

Read this. This will explain much of the problem. The minds is the biggest factor.

http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/032906AssistedSuicide.html
The Mergers, The Money, The Minds Behind Assisted Suicide
By Karen Ward, RN
Rita Marker, a lawyer out of Steubenville, Ohio, has researched and written extensively about the foundations who fund the right to die groups pushing euthanasia and physician assisted suicide in the United States. Rita states that private foundations are the critical players in promoting societal changes. They also supply the money for the studies used in advancing an ideology. This is fact. Just follow the money trail.

Good show. I have been thinking we should stage protests against Pakistan, too to let them know we are sick of them harboring terrorists.


Find a number or email and we can spar with them.

"waiting for Stevens to retire...one way or the other.
at 85; I expect GWB to be looking for a replacement within the next three years..."


"He may take a dirt nap soon enough."

What about the dread Ginsburg? I heard she is not well.


I remember reading some time back, before O'Connor announced her retirement, that there were 3 possible SC openings for GW. O'Connor was a given due to illness, likewise Rehnquist. Does anybody remember the third person?

Strange how things like this (as well as the huge Pro-American protests a while back in South Korea) never seem to get much play in the MSM. Yes they get mentioned, but if it was 100 anti-US protestors it would be all over CNN.

I did not hear anything about this.
Speaking of which, my resolution for the new year is to pester the MSM on their bias.

Is the ANA to nurses what the ALA is to librarians -- A liberal mouthpiece that doesn't necessarily reflect the views of its members?

yes

The problem with that arguement is that what is happenning is not extermination or execution. The medical ethicists and legal scholars have created the framework for allowing the next-of-kin and guardians to make medical decisions when necessary. The courts have ruled that this is what is taking place here and withdrawing artificial alimentation is acceptable - NOT MURDER, NOT EXECUTION NOR EXTERMINATION.
If your thinking were to be the legal ruling here, no family could ever withold life extending treatment no matter how futile. I hope for your sake you and your family never have to wrestle with this - I have worked with many families who have had to make this choice and none have taken it lightly - and I'm sure would argue with your assigning motives to the next-of-kin that you so readily assign to Teri's husband.
The courts have spoken -- her "life" ended when she sustained her injury -- the husband determined what therapy he wanted for her and now wants to withold...prolonging this travesty will be of no benefit.

You are partially correct.
Medicine has very few medical ethicists. This is a major problem, and why I believe we have such divisiveness on ethical issues. Most bioethicists are lawyers, or in other fields with degrees in something or another, but not often medicine.

Who has created this framework is debatable. Certainly the right to die groups, and there are many, have heavily lobbied legislatures across this country with some success. Else we would not see laws on the books redefining medical entities, defining what constitutes life support, or the new word, extraordinary life support. In Terri's case, feeding tubes are now defined as life support in the state of Florida. Courtesy of the legislature.

Couple with this, a judge who expands the medical definition of PVS at the bench. Question is, did he apply the medical definition or the state definition? Regardless how one attempts to justify the withholding of nutrition and hydration, this act is morally repugnant to many of us in the profession. You can call it what you like, we have our own words for it.

You use the word futile in your comments. That word is also a new, trendy word. Funny though, medical professionals are not the ones who introduced it to the public.

We all have experiences in working with patients' families deciding what care is appropriate and when to stop. The problem, and it is not a common problem, is when families disagree and are unable to resolve their differences. I am not talking about those whose physicians make the call without family input, or those whose physicians make the call against the families wishes. These situations occur across the nation and on a routine basis. But that is another issue.

Yes, the courts have spoken. Do you feel comfortable knowing a judge can decide to end your life if there is conflict in your family? If you emphatically believe her life ended when she sustained her injury, then you know something we do not. Do you have first hand knowledge or have contact with Terri in order to make these comments?

Since you give credence to the husband, I will not debate that point. What I will debate is the travesty to whom. And benefit to whom. Is this a travesty to Terri? It sure is, as she is directly affected by her brain injury. Is this a travesty to the husband? At one time, it was, however, he has accepted this and moved on with his life. This is fact.

Is Terri a benefit? To her family she is a benefit. And this is all about Terri. She is the patient. She is the benefit versus burden issue. She is also a benefit if she lives, as she will bring comfort to her family, and possibly to herself. Is she a burden? She is only a burden to caregivers. The only financial burden is the cost of her feeding. If she is housed in a care facility, there is certainly cost involved. Does that cost outweigh the fact of life?

Unfortunately, not all has moral clarity on life and death issues. If we arbitrarily begin euthansizing people who are deemed a burden by some, we end up practicing medicine without ethics. Medicine without ethics is Dr Mengele territory. There are some lines of morality we cannot cross without suffering the consequences.

We are at the line.

There is little media attention to this bill currently in our legislature. Please help us get the word out for Floridians to call or email their representatives in support and to co-sponsor HB 701, Withdrawing Nutrition and Hydration.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON HB 701,
THE FLORIDA STARVATION AND DEHYDRATION OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES PREVENTION ACT

QUESTIONS:

1. What can be done now that the Florida Supreme Court has struck down “Terri’s Law” under which Governor Jeb Bush directed that she be given food and fluids?

2. What can be done that the Florida courts won’t strike down?

3. Since the courts in the Schiavo case maintained there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Teresa Schindler-Schiavo would have rejected nutrition and hydration, how would the proposed bill save her life?

4. Does the bill require nutrition and hydration in every instance in which it has not been specifically rejected by the patient?

5. Some legislators say that since the Florida Supreme Court said denying Terri her food and fluids was a “final judgment”, and the legislature can't overturn a final judgment, nothing can be done.

1. What can be done now that the Florida Supreme Court has struck down “Terri’s Law” under which Governor Jeb Bush directed that she be given food and fluids?

On September 23, 2004, the Florida Supreme upheld Michael Schiavo’s challenge to the constitutionality of “Terri’s Law” which allowed Governor Jeb Bush to intervene and order that Terri Schindler-Schiavo be given food and fluids. The court held that it violates the “separation of powers” doctrine under the Florida Constitution, allegedly invading the province of the judiciary by allowing the Governor and the legislature to direct the outcome of a specific pending case. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal.

Consequently, Terri Schindler-Schiavo’s life is again in danger. What then can be done?

A bill that alters Florida law to create a general presumption for food and fluids for those who cannot speak for themselves would not face the separation of powers challenge. HB701 {click here for text} has been introduced by Representative Dennis Baxley. Such a bill has been drafted precisely to fit with controlling Florida Supreme Court opinions. It is carefully written to cover Terri’s circumstances. It would also bring protection in the uncounted number of unpublicized cases in which persons with disabilities similar to (and, in many cases, less severe than) those of Terri Schindler-Schiavo are routinely denied food and fluids in nursing homes, hospices, and hospitals.

2. What can be done that the Florida courts won’t strike down?

In Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d. 4 (1990), the Florida Supreme Court held that under the Florida Constitution a guardian, acting as a surrogate decisionmaker, must be permitted to make a decision to reject feeding through a tube for a patient who is not presently capable of making health care decisions and who has an incurable condition – even if the patient is neither terminal nor in a “persistent vegetative state.” However, the guardian must base such a decision on “clear and convincing” evidence of what the patient wanted. The Court specifically recognized that reliance on oral statements does not have the same presumption of clear and convincing evidence as written declarations. It stated that “the evidence of the patient’s oral declarations [must be] reliable.”

In creating a presumption that an incompetent person would have wanted nutrition and hydration, the proposed bill provides that the presumption is overcome if the patient executed a valid written declaration (such as a living will) specifically rejecting nutrition and hydration in the applicable circumstances. It also allows the presumption to be overcome if “There is clear and convincing evidence that the incompetent person, when competent, gave express and informed consent to withdrawing or withholding nutrition or hydration in the applicable circumstances.” This conforms to the standard mandated by the Florida Supreme Court, but takes steps statutorily to ensure that the evidence of the patient’s oral wishes is indeed “reliable.”

That “reliability” is increased by ensuring that rather than a casual, thoughtless comment, what is required is evidence of a decision that truly constitutes “express and informed consent.” Based on a combination of elements of two Florida statutory definitions of informed consent, the bill provides, “‘Express and informed consent’ means consent voluntarily given with sufficient knowledge of the subject matter involved to enable the person giving consent to make a knowing and understanding decision without any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, or other form of constraint or coercion. Sufficient knowledge of the subject matter involved includes a general understanding of: (a) The proposed treatment or procedure for which consent is sought; (b) The medical condition of the person for whom consent for the proposed treatment is sought; ( c ) Any medically acceptable alternative treatment or procedure; and (d) The substantial risks and hazards inherent if the proposed treatment or procedure is carried out and if the proposed treatment or procedure is not carried out.”

This is the critical core of the bill’s protections. In a manner that comports with the parameters set forth by the Florida Supreme Court, it assures that when there is no legal document specifying the person’s wishes, only a statement based on a fully informed decision can be interpreted as “clear and convincing evidence” of an intent to reject nutrition and hydration.

3. Since the courts in the Schiavo case maintained there was “clear and convincing evidence” that Teresa Schindler-Schiavo would have rejected nutrition and hydration, how would the proposed bill save her life?

Any bill that hopes to survive Florida court constitutional scrutiny, based on the existing precedents, must allow for “clear and convincing evidence” that a presently incompetent individual wanted to forego nutrition and hydration, even when the person never executed a legal document specifying his or her wishes. However, in order to ensure the reliability of such evidence, a factor whose importance is acknowledged by Florida Supreme Court precedent, the bill requires that to meet the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, it must be shown that the person gave “express and informed consent” to rejecting nutrition and hydration. As noted above, there is a strict standard for what constitutes truly informed consent. The casual and indefinite statements which Michael Schiavo claimed (and the courts accepted) had been made by Teresa Schindler-Schiavo could not plausibly be said to have been made with a knowledge of the medical condition in which she now finds herself that was sufficient “to make a knowing and understanding decision” based on the “substantial risks and hazards inherent if the proposed treatment or procedure is carried out and if the proposed treatment or procedure is not carried out.” Consequently, the presumption the bill creates for the provision of nutrition and hydration would apply to her. See 10/27/2003 column by Wesley Smith, “The Consequences of Casual Conversations.”

4. Does the bill require nutrition and hydration in every instance in which it has not been specifically rejected by the patient?

The presumption for nutrition and hydration does not apply when it is medically impossible to provide it, when its provision would actually hasten death (as might be the case, for example, in some cases of kidney failure), or when the medical condition of the person is such that provision of nutrition or hydration would not contribute to sustaining the incompetent person’s life or provide comfort to the incompetent person (as may sometimes occur, for example, in the final stages of the dying process when death is imminent). To safeguard against abuses of these circumstances, the bill defines an objective standard for the “reasonable medical judgment” required to establish their existence.

5. Some legislators say that since the Florida Supreme Court said denying Terri her food and fluids was a “final judgment”, and the legislature can’t overturn a final judgment, nothing can be done.

In a number of states, legislatures have passed laws allowing inmates on death row to use new DNA evidence to prove their innocence – even though there have been “final judgments” condemning them to death. These are constitutional because even if the legislature can’t overturn a past final judgment of a court, it can pass a law that changes the future effect of a court order that means someone’s death – as long as the person is still alive when the bill is enacted.

"For legal memorandum explaining this point, click here."

FRTL also has a petition for download or printing on prevention of starvation and dehydration.

http://www.frtl.org/petition/Starvation&Dehydration.pdf

You can print this out, garner signatures from friends and neighbors, then send or fax to FRTL. Address on petition.

http://www.frtl.org/

This bill is for all incapacitated Floridians and all who potentially become incapacitated.

Save a life. Prevent state spomsored euthanasia.

This goes to FL lawmakers directly.

http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=AL05B03

We have a presentation for lawmakers if you want it for the fed level. Some have already received it.
Lots of medical issues and ethics, evolution of ethics, funding of hemlock, name changes, etc. We put it together a year ago to educate lawmakers.

I called our local representatives and talked about a law to do this, and they almost laughed at me.
Seriously, that's pathetic!! Public servants huh? Well they need to realize that we're going to remember who they were come the next election and we'll blog and we'll call and they will "earn" the salary they collect thanks to the taxpayers of Florida!! Be sure to call Stan Jordan, he's one of the good guys!


Keep contacting Fl Senate reps to co-sponsor and support HB 701.

Bill 701 is still being fine tuned which would prevent anyone's feeding tube and hydration from being withheld who didn't have a written directive. THE FLA LEGISLATURE DOESN'T MEET IN SESSION UNTIL MARCH 8th.

That bill has been sent to committees. Contact your reps and tell them to co-sponsor and support it.

Jeb Bush is back to Tallahassee from South America today. If we get bad news on or before 5:00 pm est, WE NEED TO START CALLING GOV. BUSH, THE FLA HOUSE AND THE FLA SENATE AGAIN. And, email: ASKDOJ@usdoj.gov to complain that Florida is murdering an innocent woman for her husband by using activist judges.

I WILL NOT BE ON LINE AT ALL this afternoon. I WILL BE AT HOSPICE WOODSIDE. Be sure you stay tuned. Thanks, FV

You should have been calling and emailing the FL Senate on HB 701 since the end of January.

I'm amazed and disgusted at the ignorance of so many people. I was trying once again to explain Terri's condition at work yesterday yet every last one of the adults never could get off the PVS or coma or brain dead hoopla. There is hope because the teens I taught last year still ask me about Terri and are concerned. I was discussing it with one of them yesterday after school and several came up to hear the news. Teens can be airheads about many things, but they are not closed minded and cold hearted as adults apparently are.

I suggest you print out the Florida starvation and dehydration of persons with disabilities prevention act petition and have those kids sign it, then send it or fax it to FRTL, as they are capturing these for the FL senate

in the case of zero brain activity, you are correct. However, in many cases of injury or blood loss to the brain, the medulla, which controls respiration, heart rate, and other basal, non-voluntary functions, is left intact, while the cerebral cortex, which is where we think, can be completely destroyed. The reason is a difference in the path of blood flow and a longer survival time of the medulla tissue in the absence of blood. Basically, the medulla is the major priority, as it is also the last to go during excessive alcohol intake.

PVS is characterized as someone who has a completely non-functioning, destroyed cerebral cortex, but a functioning medulla, and perhaps cerebellum, which takes care of balance, and something else i cant remember. Other bodily functions, such as digestion, control of body temperature, etc, are largely controlled by hormones.

So, someone in this state can theoretically be a 100% unconsious, but be able to live indefinitely with a continuous source of nutrients and water.


Zero brain activity is simply that; no brain activity, a flat EEG. Organs and physiological functions can still occur due to the brain stem, if that portion is intact.

Medulla:
Function:
Controls Autonomic Functions
Relays Nerve Signals Between the Brain and Spinal Cord

The medulla oblongata is the lower portion of the brainstem. It is inferior to the pons and anterior to the cerebellum.

Brainstem:
Function:

Alertness

Arousal

Breathing

Blood Pressure

Contains Most of the Crainal Nerves

Digestion

Heart Rate

Other Autonomic Functions

Relays Information Between the Peripheral Nerves and Spinal Cord to the Upper Parts of the Brain

What is Coma and Persistent Vegetative State?
A coma is a profound or deep state of unconsciousness. An individual in a state of coma is alive but unable to move or respond to his or her environment. Coma may occur as a complication of an underlying illness, or as a result of injuries, such as head trauma.

A persistent vegetative state (commonly, but incorrectly, referred to as "brain-death") sometimes follows a coma. Individuals in such a state have lost their thinking abilities and awareness of their surroundings, but retain non-cognitive function and normal sleep patterns. Even though those in a persistent vegetative state lose their higher brain functions, other key functions such as breathing and circulation remain relatively intact. Spontaneous movements may occur, and the eyes may open in response to external stimuli. They may even occasionally grimace, cry, or laugh. Although individuals in a persistent vegetative state may appear somewhat normal, they do not speak and they are unable to respond to commands.

What is the prognosis?


The outcome for coma and persistent vegetative state depends on the cause, severity, and site of neurological damage. Individuals may emerge from coma with a combination of physical, intellectual, and psychological difficulties that need special attention. Recovery usually occurs gradually, with some acquiring more and more ability to respond. Some individuals never progress beyond very basic responses, but many recover full awareness. Individuals recovering from coma require close medical supervision. A coma rarely lasts more than 2 to 4 weeks. Some patients may regain a degree of awareness after persistent vegetative state. Others may remain in that state for years or even decades. The most common cause of death for someone in a persistent vegetative state is infection, such as pneumonia.

http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/coma/coma.htm

Question:

If a person is brain dead, wouldn't that person have to be
on total life support? The brain would be unable to
keep the organs functioning?


No and no