Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

What justifies a government official intervening over a
spouses right to make decisions? It is not the spouse's
fault that the court cases have dragged this on for so
long.

On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:13:59 -0500
  rfaussette@aol.com wrote:
> 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 13:17:26 2005