Judge strikes down Jeb Bush's brain-dead woman law

[foolsparade]

The republicans cry for less government, meanwhile the brain dead Bush brothers really want the opposite.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/06/schiavo.case/index.html

"Judge W. Douglas Baird wrote that the law is unconstitutional "because it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the governor and because it unjustifiably authorizes the governor to summarily deprive Florida citizens of their constitutional right to privacy."

Baird also wrote that "by substituting the personal judgment of the governor for that of the patient, the act deprives every individual who is subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of his or her own medical decisions."

any questions?

 

[Bulldog]

And this is a good thing?

 

[Susan]

NO! It is the taking of a life. . .why can anyone not see that? She is alive. The feeding tube and water is keeping her from dying a painful death. How would you feel if you were dependent on others for being nourished. . .and someone decided you would be better off dead so they stopped feeding you and giving you water?

 

[DaveSZ]

The republicans cry for less government, meanwhile the brain dead Bush brothers really want the opposite.

Don't confuse conservatives like Ron Paul with neocons like Jeb.

 

[Borealis]

The republicans cry for less government, meanwhile the brain dead Bush brothers really want the opposite.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/06/schiavo.case/index.html

"Judge W. Douglas Baird wrote that the law is unconstitutional "because it is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the governor and because it unjustifiably authorizes the governor to summarily deprive Florida citizens of their constitutional right to privacy."

Baird also wrote that "by substituting the personal judgment of the governor for that of the patient, the act deprives every individual who is subject to its terms of his or her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of his or her own medical decisions."

any questions?

Yes. Why do you support this ruling? Where is this mythical 'right to privacy?' How does it apply to legally murdering someone by starving them to death? Why is it alright for her ex-husband to order her death but it's not alright for the governor, who is supposedly responsible for the welfare of all the citizens of the state, to prevent it? Isn't her husband depriving her of her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of her own medical decisions? Or is that justifiable because he stands to gain financially from this death?

That enough for you?

 

[notto]

Yes. Why do you support this ruling? Where is this mythical 'right to privacy?' How does it apply to legally murdering someone by starving them to death? Why is it alright for her ex-husband to order her death but it's not alright for the governor, who is supposedly responsible for the welfare of all the citizens of the state, to prevent it? Isn't her husband depriving her of her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of her own medical decisions? Or is that justifiable because he stands to gain financially from this death?

That enough for you?

Do you believe that every time someone is taken off of life support they are being 'murdered'? This happens every day. The governor is interfering in the decision of a legal guardian and a patients doctors. This is unconstitutional.

 

[Dagna]

I have to say that I agree with the ruling. The government has no right to step in and make decisions for this woman or her family, in my opinion. Of course, this also brings to light why it's important to have ALL your family member know what you want to happen should you ever be on life support.

 

[Kelly]

Of course, this also brings to light why it's important to have ALL your family member know what you want to happen should you ever be on life support.

Amen.

 

[Firscherscherling]

Time to set the drama aside. This woman is no longer with us. She left the building 14 years ago.

And please lets not start the lie mill going again. The husband does not stand to gain from the death. Removing the feeding tube will nto be a long and painful death. In the first place, the woman has no mind with which to process the idea of suffering. Second, starvation is actually not a painful death at all.

 

[jayem]

Why is it alright for her ex-husband to order her death but it's not alright for the governor, who is supposedly responsible for the welfare of all the citizens of the state, to prevent it? Isn't her husband depriving her of her constitutionally guaranteed right to the privacy of her own medical decisions? Or is that justifiable because he stands to gain financially from this death?

That enough for you?

According to Michael Schiavo, he is acting in line with Terri's own wishes--that is, she would not want to be kept alive by feeding tubes. As the spouse, and legal surrogate, he does not have to prove this. The burden of proof is on those who dispute this claim. It was tried in court several times, and all the courts found that there was no evidence that Michael was acting contrary to Terri's own desires. But then the legislature suddenly decides that the Governor has the authority to override a husband's surrogacy, even when it has been upheld by due process of the courts. The action of the Governor and legislature has been outrageous and overturning it is absolutely right and proper.

 

[Citizen of Earth]

The right to die should be an inalienable right.
The right to allow a loved one to "pull the plug" on you in a vegetative state should be an inalienable right, as well.


And who, pray tell, is footing the bill for this monumentous 14-year hospital bill, aye?

 

[Bulldog]

According to Michael Schiavo, he is acting in line with Terri's own wishes--that is, she would not want to be kept alive by feeding tubes.

The problem is he has no hard proof to say that.

Why can't we just give the custody to the parents?

 

[JPPT1974]

God is and should be the ONE and not the government telling people when it is their time to go and it is his clock that people are on, and when it is up, it is up. Too bad the government needs to keep their noses out of other people's business.

 

[Citizen of Earth]

Folks, ask yourself this simple question:

What is the motive behind keeping a person in such a state alive for all this time, and who is profitting?

 

[theeyesoftammyfaye]

The problem is he has no hard proof to say that.

Why can't we just give the custody to the parents?

because, as her husband, he is the next of kin, and has the right to make medical decisions for her.

 

[kermit]

Why is it wrong to let the woman finally having rest. She is going to a better place. Almost anywhere is better than a having to depend upon tubes to keep you alive.

The woman, as she was known, died long ago. Is it wrong to let her body go to? Is it not cruel to her loved ones not to be able to have finality to her passing?

 

[oldrooster]

Except her husband is or was a suspect in her demise, I dont think that they will give the decision to him.

 

[Spike~]

NO! It is the taking of a life. . .why can anyone not see that? She is alive. The feeding tube and water is keeping her from dying a painful death. How would you feel if you were dependent on others for being nourished. . .and someone decided you would be better off dead so they stopped feeding you and giving you water?

Taking of a life? What life? This woman has been dead, and in hell for 14 years. Trapped in a broken mind, unable to interact with anyone, unable to experiance the simple, and sometimes not-so-simple pleasures of life that make life worth living. There is a differnce between being alive and living. What's the point of life, if you can't live it.

A painful death? She'll die in a week. And as someone else said, she isn't a frame of mind to translate pain.

This isn't something that being done to her against her wishes, it's something she wants.

Jeb was an idiot for getting involved. That was not his place, and I hope they send him the hospital bill.

 

[draper]

Wow, this case (and others like it) are just so tough. I'm not gonna try to formulate an opinion even, its so difficult a subject...just let me say I'm hella glad I don't have to make a decision on this LOL.

 

[AngelusSax]

Second, starvation is actually not a painful death at all.

This is the only statement that kind of shocked me. Because now I must ask . . .
How many times have you starved to death?

I do think this decision, like all medical ones, should be up to the family (in this case, since the actual patient cannot speak for herself).

This isn't something that being done to her against her wishes, it's something she wants.

So says her husband. Her parents hold a different view. That's what makes this such a huge ordeal.