Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

 The conservative backlash against this, I think, is another example of our society's eroding respect for the institution of marriage.

 
I could be wrong but I thought her husband already is living with another woman or remarried and insurance monies would be saved for him if Terry died instead of having to pay for her care. Her parents are willing to care for her. If her husband is an adulterer what does this have to do with eroding marriage?
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: drsyme@cablespeed.com
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 07:48:00 -0600
Subject: 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 12:15:04 2005