Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

What makes you think her death is "unjustified"? According to her husband,
and the Florida courts, this is what she would have wanted, to have the
feeding tube removed. Do you know something that the judges in Florida
dont know? The truth is, you dont know all of the evidence. And you have
no need to know, it isnt your decision to make. Under what circumstances do
you want to bring in government officials to make health care decisions?

Is it the starvation aspect? Is it the withdrawal of life sustaining
treatment. People make decisions to forgo life sustaining treatment all of
the time. They have ventilators withdrawn, tube feedings stopped,
antibiotics discontinued, dialysis discontinued. And in these cases the
care givers do not abandon them, they care for them, they make them
comfortable.

Is it when there is a conflict? Despite what you think of the husband, the
process in Florida was handled appropriately. The family disagreed with the
decision, and took it to court. The courts repeatedly agreed with the
husband. Do you want the elected officials to intervene everytime there is
a conflict in such a decision? Would you feel differently if Jeb Bush et
al. agreed with the husband?

Or is it that you want to preserve life at whatever cost? This might be
your value about your life, but does that mean that this value should be
forced on someone else?

What is merciful about forcing a treatment on a patient that didnt want it?
Would you force a Jehovah's witness to accept a blood transfusion without
which they would die? I dont think you want to claim that patients should
be treated against their wishes. You dont trust the husband. But, that is
your emotional response to it, not a rational evaluation of the evidence,
but you dont know all the evidence so it is understandable. Despite all the
bad publicity the husband has gotten, there is no question that there is
always a conflict of interest in whoever is making the decision. I dont have
enough evidence to say exactly what the motivations of either side are, but
I do know the process was followed correctly.

And I do know that government interventions in individual medical decisions
cannot be a good thing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
To: <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
Cc: "ASA" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 6:21 PM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> On Mar 18, 2005, at 12:16 PM, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
>
>> What justifies a government official intervening over a spouses right to
>> make decisions?
>
> Perhaps to prevent Mrs. Schiavo's unjustified death by starvation?
>
>> It is not the spouse's fault that the court cases have dragged this on
>> for so long.
>
> Of course it's not Mr. Schiavo's fault it has taken so long for him to get
> permission to starve his wife to death, collect her insurance and live
> happily ever after with his common-law wife.
>
> Scott Peterson, Mr. BTK and Brian Nichols will get more mercy than Mrs.
> Schiavo.
>
> Bill Dozier
> Minister of Silly Guitar Sounds
> ---
> "Social Security is founded on the principle, that, because some people
> won't save for retirement, all must be punished." -- FrankJ (imao.us)
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 20:14:00 2005