Tuesday, March 22, 2005

Reply to a comment.

Rew, Howdy. I don't know the legal definition of life support, and think I've heard Florida's recently changed to include feeding and hydration tubes. My lay opinion excludes feeding tube, as they do what a person usually does for themself. Withdraw feeding from anyone and the result is the same. Kidney dialysis seems a better example of "life support". It is a machine doing the work kidneys have stopped doing. Stop dialysis and one has a couple of days. But the question in this case, and which is central to the sudden erupting of this story to national prominence, is the lack of any written wished on this matter from the person with the most to loose, Terri Schiavo. The Judge made a decision to believe her husband's assertion that 'she wouldn't want to live like this' while rejecting similar assertions to the contrary made by her parents. Once the Judge ruled, our system of law is such that other courts may rule then only on the law, considering that the facts have been ruled on. Congress, under authority of the 14th Amendment, passed legislation requiring a de novo(new) look at the case, (essentially another trial)which would have included depositions, cross-examinations etc. The Judge in that case (right word...?), as I've heard it described, dropped the ball. Now it is up to the 11th District Appeals(?) Court whether to issue an injunction to replace the feeding and hydrations tubes while they review the case. Several friends at work realize the dilemma this case presents, having said, "I wouldn't want her(their wives) to live like that, become quiet and thoughtful when I ask, would they want her to die like that. And there is another central fact here: Terri Schiavo was not dying. Do we really want to go to a place where a Judge gives a spouses the right to end a husband or wife's life through starvation? Turning off a ventilator at a written request from the patient is one thing, and I can respect that very difficult decision. We wouldn't put someing in a tank and suck out all the air. We shouldn't cut off food and water. Sure, it is painful seeing a loved one like that. ( I will not tell you about my own father and his Alzheimer's). But will those so eager to withdraw water, stick around to watch?

These guys are smarter than me on the legal aspects: Starvation isn't painless; Partisan Hypocrisy; the Whittemore decision; Starving for a fair Diagnosis; and Hugh Hewitt has his usual common sense take on the law and things legal regarding this case.

And, thanks for listening.

No comments: