I can't believe she's out!

[downzero]

Mister, if you'd have done to a dog what was done to that woman, you'd be charged with animal cruelty. And that's all I'm saying about that.

So I'm under some sort of legal obligation to provide medical care to a dog?

News to me. A dog is a piece of property.

 

[JetGirl]

So I'm under some sort of legal obligation to provide medical care to a dog?

And that's all I'm saying about that.

And that's all I'm saying about that.

And that's all I'm saying about that.

And that's all I'm saying about that.

Get it?

 

[downzero]

Get it?

Yeah. It's like me saying "and that's final" and then not allowing you to respond. This is a discussion forum. Come to discuss issues or feel free not to bother to submit your reply.

The person to which you referred was as close to dead as medicine can identify without a total cessation of circulatory function. If you're going to suggest that she was "starved" to death like an otherwise healthy four year old girl, you should be ready to defend your position.

If I pulled the plug on a dog that was on life support for 20 years, the only consequence would be a dead dog. I wouldn't be charged with anything. So in case it's not clear, you're wrong.

Oh and "that's all I'm going to say about that." Get it?

 

[JetGirl]

Yeah. It's like me saying "and that's final" and then not allowing you to respond. This is a discussion forum. Come to discuss issues or feel free not to bother to submit your reply.

The person to which you referred was as close to dead as medicine can identify without a total cessation of circulatory function. If you're going to suggest that she was "starved" to death like an otherwise healthy four year old girl, you should be ready to defend your position.

If I pulled the plug on a dog that was on life support for 20 years, the only consequence would be a dead dog. I wouldn't be charged with anything. So in case it's not clear, you're wrong.

Oh and "that's all I'm going to say about that." Get it?

There would be no "discussion". Your mind is clearly made up, as is mine. I don't see you changing your opinion and I know for dang sure I won't change mine.
Wrong is wrong, even if the government gives its almighty "OK".
Thanks for the neg rep, though. That was cute.
Don't look for one returned to you. That's not how I operate.

 

[Fletch]

If you believe that, you obviously don't know or understand the facts in the Shiavo case very well at all.

Had she expressed a wish to die if ever in the state she was?

Did she, by virtue of savings or insurance contracts or charitable contributions, have the resources to continue in that same state?

If she had no expressed wish to die (and it's my understanding that she didn't), it must be presumed she wanted to live. If she had the resources available to continue her own life, then she had every right to it. If she expressed a desire to die, others merely carried out her wishes -- a tad late, but carried them out. If she lacked the resources, she had no right to demand that others provide them. To the extent that laws existed or were created to circumvent her rights or enhance those of the government or her husband over hers, the law is immoral and she was murdered.

 

[dross]

Had she expressed a wish to die if ever in the state she was?

Did she, by virtue of savings or insurance contracts or charitable contributions, have the resources to continue in that same state?

If she had no expressed wish to die (and it's my understanding that she didn't), it must be presumed she wanted to live. If she had the resources available to continue her own life, then she had every right to it. If she expressed a desire to die, others merely carried out her wishes -- a tad late, but carried them out. If she lacked the resources, she had no right to demand that others provide them. To the extent that laws existed or were created to circumvent her rights or enhance those of the government or her husband over hers, the law is immoral and she was murdered.

My understanding of the case is that her husband gave testimony that she HAD in the past indicated her wishes if she were ever in such a state.

I don't know about the resources.

To me, the law was pretty clear on this one. Agree or disagree with the law, and I think reasonable people can disagree on this one. Absent a will, her husband had the authority to do this - in the way I understand it.

As a libertarian, I believe we have the right to end our own lives if we are of sound mind. I also believe that I have to right to make my wishes known in advance of such a circumstance and have it followed. She didn't make a record of her wishes.

Did her husband lie? Her family says so. We can never know.

This had to resolve in some way. The court was left with a nasty choice.

 

[ATOMonkey]

I gave my wife a dollar limit on the amount that she was allowed to pay out of pocket to keep me "alive" if I'm in some kind of coma (is there one m or two??).

I'll be damned if I let my family spend all of our money on what amounts to a corpse. Don't want to throw in the towel too early though.

 

[Fletch]

My understanding of the case is that her husband gave testimony that she HAD in the past indicated her wishes if she were ever in such a state.

...

Did her husband lie? Her family says so. We can never know.

This had to resolve in some way. The court was left with a nasty choice.

Unrecorded verbal contracts are considered a bad idea for a reason. They devolve into he said/she said. I agree that the court was left with a nasty choice, but IMO they made the wrong one. Morally, they needed to start with the base presumption that she wanted to live, and require documented proof that this was not the case.

 

[dross]

Unrecorded verbal contracts are considered a bad idea for a reason. They devolve into he said/she said. I agree that the court was left with a nasty choice, but IMO they made the wrong one. Morally, they needed to start with the base presumption that she wanted to live, and require documented proof that this was not the case.

I agree with this. My understanding - which I admit may be incomplete - is that this eventually resolved according to the way Florida law was written at the time.

Hypothetical to you: Assuming the husband was bankrupt, should she be kept alive artificially until she was 80? And is he on the hook for those bills? Or is this a societal cost.

I wonder - I haven't worked this out completely - I wonder if it is the same as killing someone if you remove artificial means of support.

Let's say I come upon an unconscious person. I think we'd both agree I should have no legal imperative to give CPR. Now, if I begin, and their life is now being kept alive by my actions, am I now under a legal obligation to continue?

 

[Fletch]

Hypothetical to you: Assuming the husband was bankrupt, should she be kept alive artificially until she was 80? And is he on the hook for those bills? Or is this a societal cost.

She is entitled to half of the marital assets, by my reckoning. He should be able to divorce her, even in her state, and leave her with half of whatever to live however she can.

Societal cost is immoral, IMO, if I understand you to mean "taxpayer funded". But if a charitable group wanted to step in and fund her continued existence, nobody should be able to object.

FWIW, I rarely base my opinion on laws, because I consider them nothing more than a government-sponsored full-employment program for lawyers. Law is no substitute for morality.

 

[dross]

FWIW, I rarely base my opinion on laws, because I consider them nothing more than a government-sponsored full-employment program for lawyers. Law is no substitute for morality.

Neither do I. But I expect the court to follow the law, or to rule it unconstitutional. I don't see a constitutional issue. You and I both agree that a person should be able to make their wishes known in advance. After that, the argument becomes "known by what manner." You're arguing for a higher burden of proof. Florida law allowed a lower burden.

Your beef is with the Florida legislature, not the court.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

What I remember of the case, her family insisted she sometimes showed signs of responding to them. They wanted to take her home and care for her. Husband, for whatever reason, didn't want to divorce her (although I understand he was living with another woman and had at least one child with that woman) and insisted she had told him she wanted to die. Alleged hanky-panky between the judge in the case and husband (emphasis on "alleged"). The upshot is that the woman was denied any palliative care once she was taken off the feeding tube.

I was outraged at the situation, but I'm getting inured to government sanction of murder of innocents in this country...

 

[Fletch]

Neither do I. But I expect the court to follow the law, or to rule it unconstitutional. I don't see a constitutional issue. You and I both agree that a person should be able to make their wishes known in advance. After that, the argument becomes "known by what manner." You're arguing for a higher burden of proof. Florida law allowed a lower burden.

Your beef is with the Florida legislature, not the court.

My beef is with all levels of the system, from the ones who start the mistake in motion to the ones who fail to correct it at every step along the way. Hearsay is not a standard of proof that any reasonable person should accept when it comes down to decisions of life & death. If it is, then every murderer should be able to present an affirmative defense that their victims expressed a wish to die, and walk out of courtroom scot-free.

 

[dross]

My beef is with all levels of the system, from the ones who start the mistake in motion to the ones who fail to correct it at every step along the way. Hearsay is not a standard of proof that any reasonable person should accept when it comes down to decisions of life & death. If it is, then every murderer should be able to present an affirmative defense that their victims expressed a wish to die, and walk out of courtroom scot-free.

I don't believe the definition of hearsay is applicable in this case. He said he actually heard her state her wishes, not that someone else said that she said it.

I think we share similar views here, but I'm not seeing your usual objective remove.

Assuming for a moment the facts imbedded in these premeses are correct:

Premise: A request to be removed from artificial support by the person supported should be honored.
Premise: A person's request in advance to be removed from artificial support should be honored.

I think we agree so far. The question remains: What is the standard of proof needed to determine the person's advance wishes?

You say we need better evidence than someone's word. Okay, reasonable. Florida law appears not to have required that level of standard. You disagree with Florida law.

Is your position that the courts should have ignored the state of Florida law and ruled according to some other standard?

And I'm still interested to hear your opinion about the removal of artificial support and what legal ramifications that should have.

 

[Fletch]

You say we need better evidence than someone's word. Okay, reasonable. Florida law appears not to have required that level of standard. You disagree with Florida law.

Is your position that the courts should have ignored the state of Florida law and ruled according to some other standard?

I misused the word "hearsay". I was in a hurry, sorry.

This is where I think courts are correct in adjusting, modifying, or ignoring the law. You can take a guy to small claims court over "he said he'd mow my lawn if I gave him 20 bucks", but unless there's some kind of proof that he agreed to such a thing, I don't think you should have a case. Writing/recording should be required, or failing that, a minimum of a 3rd-party witness, though I'm not particularly fond of that option.

I'm a big fan of the idea that contracts (as opposed to legislation) should be the primary form of law, and contracts need to be recorded in some objectively verifiable manner.

The only way I can see my way clear to thinking that Schiavo case was resolved correctly is if marriage creates a de facto power of attorney, but once again I'd prefer that was a matter of the marriage contract, not of legislated marital powers or rights. And before anyone asks, yes I do believe that two people entering into marriage together ought to enter into a formal written contract spelling out what's what.

And I'm still interested to hear your opinion about the removal of artificial support and what legal ramifications that should have.

As I've implied above, if someone wishes to die, and those wishes are laid out in an objectively verifiable manner, I see no issues with letting them have their wish. I support assisted suicide as a fundamental right. I don't think we should have any laws against attempting suicide.

I do think that if a person has expressed a wish to die, they should be allowed to do so in whatever humane manner is available and affordable to them. Terry Schiavo, if it could have been objectively determined that she wished to die, should have been given a big dose of whatever drug would have hastened that end. Last year, my favorite aunt spent the last few weeks of her life in unbearable agony, and I've been told she said she wanted to die long before she did. I don't think that any law which prevented that kind of mercy has any business being made or enforced.

 

[hornadylnl]

Dross,

Without solid proof, I think we need to err on the side of life. Myself, I would not want to live in the state that Schiavo was in and have made that known to my wife. I have not yet had a living will made up but I need to be getting my butt in gear and getting it done.

 

[dross]

Let's say I come upon an unconscious person. I think we'd both agree I should have no legal imperative to give CPR. Now, if I begin, and their life is now being kept alive by my actions, am I now under a legal obligation to continue?

This was the hypothetical I was referring to earlier.

I'm a big fan of the idea that contracts (as opposed to legislation) should be the primary form of law, and contracts need to be recorded in some objectively verifiable manner. .

I agree with you on the concept, the particulars might be difficult to work out. Quick example: Should someone be able to contract themselves out as a slave for life?

The problem I have with judges ignoring the law for reasons other than constitutional is that to me the laws are like the rules of the game. This is far-fletched , but hear my ad absurdum out.

Suppose the Schiavos discussed getting a living will, but they looked up the state of the law and determined that if it ever came to it, his word would be enough under Florida law. How betrayed would he feel if some judge ignored the law and substituted his own judgment of what the law should have been?

I don't believe this was the case, of course, but you see my point I think.

Anyway, just enjoying the deep exploration of the issue. I think we fundamentally agree.

 

[RachelMarie]

Burn witch, Burn!

 

[dross]

Dross,

Without solid proof, I think we need to err on the side of life. Myself, I would not want to live in the state that Schiavo was in and have made that known to my wife. I have not yet had a living will made up but I need to be getting my butt in gear and getting it done.

I'm with all that, but the questions I'm asking are a couple of onion skins deeper.

 

[Fletch]

Let's say I come upon an unconscious person. I think we'd both agree I should have no legal imperative to give CPR. Now, if I begin, and their life is now being kept alive by my actions, am I now under a legal obligation to continue?

This was the hypothetical I was referring to earlier.

Say you come upon a homeless bum, and give him twenty bucks, despite no legal imperative to do so. Are you now under an obligation to support him for the rest of his life?

I agree with you on the concept, the particulars might be difficult to work out. Quick example: Should someone be able to contract themselves out as a slave for life?

Assuming a person is capable of contract, I would say yes. Many wives would say this is already being done.

The problem I have with judges ignoring the law for reasons other than constitutional is that to me the laws are like the rules of the game. This is far-fletched , but hear my ad absurdum out.

Suppose the Schiavos discussed getting a living will, but they looked up the state of the law and determined that if it ever came to it, his word would be enough under Florida law. How betrayed would he feel if some judge ignored the law and substituted his own judgment of what the law should have been?

I understand the objection. My initial response is the old saw about the guy who's his own lawyer has a fool for a client. This is yet another reason I despise legislation.

I don't believe this was the case, of course, but you see my point I think.

I do, yes.