Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

This sounds like you have been deceived by the conservative side.

The main issue is this. Do you really want an elected official, who has
political motivations, to make decisions about withholding or continuing
life sustaining treatment? This decision does not belong in the courts. It
is not a decision of a government official, it is a decision between the
patient, or his or her surrogate, and the doctor.

Whether you like it or not, her parents are not the statuatorily appointed
surrogates. Do you think the laws need to be changed? Do you know what the
laws are in your state?

If it would be the case that the husband was not acting with the appropriate
standard, that is, making the decision that the patient would make, then
there is reason to go to court and make that claim. Like I said, this was
done by the family, three times. And the family lost three times. You dont
know what evidence was presented in these trials. You only know what the
family is publicizing. But, the Florida courts upheld the husband each
time. The process as it is, appointed the husband as the decision maker,
the family went to court to say he was not acting appropriately, and each
time the family lost. So who are you to say he should not decide?

Can you not see that this has become a politcal football? My original point
was the political climate during Nancy Cruzan was more liberal than now. I
have no doubt that the current attempts of Bill Frist, and the House are
inappropriate. The process is what is being attacked here. And unless
there is some objection to the state laws regarding who should be making
decisions, I see no reason why the husband shouldnt be allowed to decide in
this case.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Yates" <billyates@billyates.com>
Cc: <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> The problems arise because of several factors:
> 1) The husband long ago stopped any therapy
> 2) He will not allow independent doctors to examine her
> 3) He will not allow such tests as an MRI which would be standard in cases
> like this
> 4) He is living with another woman and they have two children together
> 5) We have only his word that she "wouldn't want to live like this"
> 6) The circumstances surrounding the precipitating incident are not at all
> clear
> 7) There are reports she had injuries consistent with spousal abuse
> 8) He will not allow any examination to prove or disprove these
> allegations
> 10) She is not in a persistent vegetative state
> 11) The only life support she requires at this time is a feeding tube.
> Experts say she could be taugh to eat by mouth. Her husband has forbidden
> this
> 12) She is not in any pain
> 13) Whether she can recover is debatable but others have recovered after
> being in such a state for extended periods of time
> 14) Death by starvation is really death by dehydration and is an extremely
> unconfortable way to die
> 15) He will not divorce her and allow her parents to take care of her
> 16) He stands to gain a considerable amount of money upon her death
> 17) A husband is to love his wife as Christ loves the church
>
> I could probably go on, but the message is clear: Terry Schiavo needs a
> representative other than her husband to speak for her.
>
> Never, never, never be in a hurry to end someone's life, especially when
> the quality of that life doesn't meet your standards.
>
> Pray for wisdom for all involved.
>
> ---Bill Yates
>
> drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> --Bill Yates
> --mailto:billyates@billyates.com
> --http://www.billyates.com
> --http://billyates.blogspot.com
> --CD Reviewer, Webmaster, Roots66.com
> --Editor, WorldVillage.com's Believer's Weekly
> --Theron Services: Web Design, Editing, Writing
Received on Fri Mar 18 17:40:41 2005