Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

Yes there can be conflicts of interest. But what better process would you propose? The standard here is substitued judgement. The surrogate, whoever the appropriate surrogate is, needs to make the decision the patient would make if the patient was able to make a decision. In the Schiavo case, both sides were allowed to present evidence about what the patient would want. This went throught the Florida courts three times. And in each court decision, the judge decided that the evidence indicates that the husband was acting appropriately, and was making the decision that the patient would have wanted.

What that evidence was, I dont know. But, why should we believe the parents any more than we believe the husband? Putting all of the speculation of the husbands motives aside, the evidence, at least evidence that met the standards of the courts in Florida, were that he was acting appropriately, and there was not enough evidence to believe that he should not be allowed to make the decision.

Some of these cases are difficult, but I think that defaulting to a spouse, without evidence to the contrary is appropriate.
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: George Murphy
  To: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:21 PM
  Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

  Rich brings up the same type of concern I have with the appeal to respect for marriage here. Whether or not what he says about the husband in this case is correct (& I've heard the same kind of thing), it's not difficult to think of situations where a spouse would have a conflict of interest - e.g., if a spouse wanted to remarry or there were financial considerations (insurances, an estate, &c).

  & this kind of thing can cut both ways & isn't limited to rights of a spouse. Here in Akron we've had a situation in which a young boy (I think he's still less than 2), Aidan Stein, has suffered apparently irreversible brain damage, is comatose (I may not have the right technical term for the level of that) & has been on a vent for over a year. His parents have gotten the support of local Right to Life folks and have fought to keep him from being taken off the vent. The complication is that the brain damage is likely due to him being shaken by his father (though the latter denies it) & if the child dies, father could be criminally responsible for that.

  Shalom
  George

  Shalom
  George
  http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: rfaussette@aol.com
    To: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; asa@calvin.edu
    Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 12:13 PM
    Subject: 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, i n 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 tim es, 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 17:31:19 2005