I don’t agree that the laws failed. The laws enacted by the Florida legislature and signed by the Florida governor were followed. It was proper for the case to work its way through the Florida court system as it originally did. The first improper delay, in my opinion, was when the Florida legislature and governor decided to try to block the implementation, not in general, but in just one case, of laws they had passed and signed. The second improper delay, which was the one I particularly objected to, was when the U.S. Congress and president attempted to block the implementation of Florida law, again in only one case, rather than in general. The Schiavo case was not unusual, except for the degree of rancor in her family. Most people do not have written advance directives. Many families of people in persistent vegetative states decide to terminate artificial sustenance and hydration. Many people who possess their full mental faculties choose that option for themselves. The kind of death Terri Schiavo experienced is just not at all uncommon. It’s provided for in the laws of many States, if not all of them.
Now I have no problem at all with people being opposed to withholding artificial nutrition and hydration, whether in some cases or all. I’m all for them working to change the laws in their States, through the normal processes of legislation or public initiatives. I have no problem with people taking their disagreements to the courts. I have a big problem with people wanting to trash our whole governmental system to get their desired results in one particular case that touches their emotions.
On a national level, I don’t think much of anything should be done in response to the Schiavo case. It was pretty common in the sense I discussed above, but the attention it got, the ugly spectacle of it all, was very uncommon. I think it will be largely forgotten pretty quickly and that people will go on living and dying, and making private decisions about life and death, pretty much as they did before. Whatever changes are appropriate should be at the State level.
Interested people should read and understand the laws of their own States and write their legislators, expressing their opinions about their State laws. For the most part, people of other States should butt out, as should Congress. (That doesn’t mean that a national dialogue is inappropriate. I think that would be a good thing.)
What I'd like to ask of you is this: what can we do to prevent this kind of tragedy from happening again?
Depending on which tragedy you are referring to, there are a few things. If you are referring to preventing people like Terri Schiavo from being let go, I'd suggest writing a living will. If you don't want it to happen to you, then write one. That's the best you can do, and you can't make these decisions for anyone else.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark:
The laws obviously failed here. If you were in favor of keeping hydration/nutrition flowing into her stomach, that is a statement of the obvious. If you were in favor of withdrawing hydration/nutrition, though, it took 8 years from the time the husband made that decision until it actually happened. That has to be viewed as a failure, as well.
We can't make laws based on opinions or irrational emotional states based on bad information and propaganda. As far as I can tell, the law worked fine here. Michael Schiavo could have had her tube pulled much earlier than this, but he gave the parents a chance at first because he wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing, and felt that a guardian ad lidem would be the best way to go. The court ruled in favor of him rather than the parents. However, the parents tried every legal move that they could come up with, which dragged the case on. Most people would not do something like this because the majority would not want to keep the bodies of their children alive, and they would not contradict the husband who knows her better. The problem in this specific case is that the parents seemed to suffer from some sort of mental illness, or at least the father. This caused a lot of problems and in the name of neutrality, nobody tried to get them to face reality.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark:
So what can be done to prevent another Schiavo/Schindler debaucle from happening again? Yes, I know living wills/advanced medical directives, etc. But are there any policy decisions, laws, etc. that can be done to help, as well, for those people who haven't taken the hint here?
This sort of thing happens every day, although in most cases the spouse and the children agree with each other. The biggest problem is that this was considered "news" and more important than the potential thousands dead in Indonesia. It is a tragedy that even though the vast majority of Americans would do what Michael Schiavo did, the right-wing media showed the radical religious groups non-stop and treated their propaganda as fact. What got even worse though was when religious leaders, as well as certain Republicans like Jeb Bush, Tom Delay, and others were willing to break the law to pursue what they wanted to do. This could be when Jeb Bush sent state police to confront the local police protecting the hospice, or when religious leaders and Tom Delay made various threats against the judges in this case, Michael Schiavo, or even the people working at the hospice.
I was wondering how her parents were paying for all these costs? It was stated that her husband burned up a lot of the rehab money trying to disconnect her feeding tube and let her pass.
Unless this was a lot of pro-bono work, her parents must be very well off.
Recommended Posts
LG
I don’t agree that the laws failed. The laws enacted by the Florida legislature and signed by the Florida governor were followed. It was proper for the case to work its way through the Florida court system as it originally did. The first improper delay, in my opinion, was when the Florida legislature and governor decided to try to block the implementation, not in general, but in just one case, of laws they had passed and signed. The second improper delay, which was the one I particularly objected to, was when the U.S. Congress and president attempted to block the implementation of Florida law, again in only one case, rather than in general. The Schiavo case was not unusual, except for the degree of rancor in her family. Most people do not have written advance directives. Many families of people in persistent vegetative states decide to terminate artificial sustenance and hydration. Many people who possess their full mental faculties choose that option for themselves. The kind of death Terri Schiavo experienced is just not at all uncommon. It’s provided for in the laws of many States, if not all of them.
Now I have no problem at all with people being opposed to withholding artificial nutrition and hydration, whether in some cases or all. I’m all for them working to change the laws in their States, through the normal processes of legislation or public initiatives. I have no problem with people taking their disagreements to the courts. I have a big problem with people wanting to trash our whole governmental system to get their desired results in one particular case that touches their emotions.
On a national level, I don’t think much of anything should be done in response to the Schiavo case. It was pretty common in the sense I discussed above, but the attention it got, the ugly spectacle of it all, was very uncommon. I think it will be largely forgotten pretty quickly and that people will go on living and dying, and making private decisions about life and death, pretty much as they did before. Whatever changes are appropriate should be at the State level.
Interested people should read and understand the laws of their own States and write their legislators, expressing their opinions about their State laws. For the most part, people of other States should butt out, as should Congress. (That doesn’t mean that a national dialogue is inappropriate. I think that would be a good thing.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
Depending on which tragedy you are referring to, there are a few things. If you are referring to preventing people like Terri Schiavo from being let go, I'd suggest writing a living will. If you don't want it to happen to you, then write one. That's the best you can do, and you can't make these decisions for anyone else.
We can't make laws based on opinions or irrational emotional states based on bad information and propaganda. As far as I can tell, the law worked fine here. Michael Schiavo could have had her tube pulled much earlier than this, but he gave the parents a chance at first because he wanted to make sure he was doing the right thing, and felt that a guardian ad lidem would be the best way to go. The court ruled in favor of him rather than the parents. However, the parents tried every legal move that they could come up with, which dragged the case on. Most people would not do something like this because the majority would not want to keep the bodies of their children alive, and they would not contradict the husband who knows her better. The problem in this specific case is that the parents seemed to suffer from some sort of mental illness, or at least the father. This caused a lot of problems and in the name of neutrality, nobody tried to get them to face reality.
This sort of thing happens every day, although in most cases the spouse and the children agree with each other. The biggest problem is that this was considered "news" and more important than the potential thousands dead in Indonesia. It is a tragedy that even though the vast majority of Americans would do what Michael Schiavo did, the right-wing media showed the radical religious groups non-stop and treated their propaganda as fact. What got even worse though was when religious leaders, as well as certain Republicans like Jeb Bush, Tom Delay, and others were willing to break the law to pursue what they wanted to do. This could be when Jeb Bush sent state police to confront the local police protecting the hospice, or when religious leaders and Tom Delay made various threats against the judges in this case, Michael Schiavo, or even the people working at the hospice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rejoice
Court and legal fees????
I was wondering how her parents were paying for all these costs? It was stated that her husband burned up a lot of the rehab money trying to disconnect her feeding tube and let her pass.
Unless this was a lot of pro-bono work, her parents must be very well off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.