Originally posted by AcolyteWell this law is supposed to deal directly with Terry alone. But in the u.s. this sets "precedence" which can be used to back up later court descisions.
I know the bill was inspired by this woman's case, but does the bill really specifically deal with what to do with Terri Schiavo, or is it a more general piece of legislation aimed at clarifying what doctors should do in a range of similar cases? If it's the former, I think I've just lost any doubts I might have had about the sanity of the current American political establishment 😲
Nyxie
Originally posted by lucifershammerThat seems to be a mighty big connection then, doesn't it???
?
I fail to see the connection between your statement and my post (except that they're both talking about Terri Schiavo).
Considering that IT'S THE CONDOLA TOPIC.
Butt-munch!
What amazes me is that some comatose people lay in bed for 15 years, yet others get to become president.
FOOD FOR CONDOLA THOUGHT
As stated in the other thread, it is a State Constitutional right in Florida to decline medical treatment, including a feeding tube. It has been the law since 1990 that a person may leave instructions that they would not want a feeding tube left in if they were in a persistent vegative state. Such instructions may be in a living will, health care proxy or oral instructions. 6 courts have determined, under a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, that Terri Schiavo left oral instructions that she would not wish to be left in such a state.
Tom DeLay said this: "Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don’t care what her husband says.”
So much for an individual's wishes. So much for states rights. So much for the sanctity of marriage. Whenever a transient majority in Congress can muster enough votes, no court decision or principle of law is sufficient in any state under the doctrine on which this legislation is based. I hope that in the end this law will be found unconstitutional on federalism principles, but if it is not it's effect will be pernicious indeed.
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, what he said.
As stated in the other thread, it is a State Constitutional right in Florida to decline medical treatment, including a feeding tube. It has been the law since 1990 that a person may leave instructions that they would not want a feeding tube left in if they were in a persistent vegative state. Such instructions may be in a living will, health car ...[text shortened]... stitutional on federalism principles, but if it is not it's effect will be pernicious indeed.
Nyxie
Originally posted by lucifershammerOh, silly me. I had always just assumed that ivanhoe had created it. I'm surprised to learn that it came directly ex cathedra. Now I wonder if the Pope was also the first to characterize the Wolfpack.
I'm not sure who coined the term, but the Pope has used it several times in his speeches and writings.
Originally posted by eagles54If you read a medical definition of Persistant Vegetative State, you will note
In the short piece of tape I saw, Ms. Schiavo was smiling in the company of people. I wouldn't describe her as dead.
that it specifically says that the patient will smile, grimace, frown, cry, and
a number of other things at random times. Whether another person is there
is a matter of coincidence. It's all autonomic, not a reaction to environmental
stimuli.
Nemesio