cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

In 1983 at the age of 25, Nancy Cruzan was in a motor
vehicle accident from which she suffered severe head
injuries. As a result of this she was ultimately
diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state.
 Years later, her parents wanted to discontinue her
feeding tube, but this was blocked by the State of
Missouri. Nancy Cruzan was young and healthy when the
accident ocurred, and had not prepared a writted advanced
directive of what treatments she may or may not want if
she was severely ill. The State of Missouri determined
that there needed to be clear and convincing evidence that
the patients' wishes would be to withdraw treatment in
such a case.

This went to the US Supreme Court in 1990 and they upheld
the State of Missouri's ruling saying that it was not
unconstitutional for a State to require such a standard.

As a result of this the lawmakers passed a federal law
that requires all hospitals to discuss advanced directives
with all patients as they enter the hospital. The
prevailing sentiment at the time was that the Missouri
decision was essentially a violation of Ms. Cruzan's
rights, that her parents should be allowed to make
decisions for her, and the thought was that the new law
would help to prevent such a situation.

But it hasnt helped Terri Schiavo. The cases are very
similar. No prior medical history in either case, no
advanced directives. Both in a persistent vegetative
state. One difference between now and the late 80's early
90's is that most states have legislation in place
addressing both advanced directives, and addressing who
should make decisions for people without advanced
directives.

And Florida has a law similar to most states, that give a
hierarchy of decision makers when a patient is unable to
make decisions on their own, and when there is not an
advanced directive. And, in every state that I know of,
the spouse has higher priority than parents or children of
the patient.

But now the political climate is such that not only did a
state official intervene to block a procedurally
appropriate decision to withdraw treatment in the case of
Terri Schiavo, but now there is talk of federal
legislation that would either block the removal
specifically in this case, or to pass some other
legislation that may require stricter evidence of what the
patients wishes would be.

I think that there is a strong conservative agenda here.
 But I think that conservative position is making a big
error here. My problem with their position is even the
conservatives are not accepting marriage as seriously and
as absolute as the bible claims that it is. In what I
understand as a biblical view of marriage, the spouses are
joined as one. Why shouldnt the husband be the one making
decisions here? They have gone through the Florida courts
three times, both sides presented evidence, and all three
times the courts agreed with the husband that the evidence
indicates that Terri Schiavo would not have agreed to
continue with the feeding tube.

The conservative backlash against this, I think, is
another example of our society's eroding respect for the
institution of marriage.
Received on Fri Mar 18 08:49:27 2005