Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

George,

Who makes these decisions, what to do if there is a conflict, when it is
appropriate to withdrawal, and what level of evidence is needed, has all
been "worked out" so to speak over the last 15 years or so.

As far as I know each state has statutes addressing this. The debates about
this likely occured in your state legislature a few years ago, so the time
for just theoretical discussion has passed. Not that there is still not any
value to it, I am just saying that this has already been discussed many
times, and there is a lot of case history already behind us.
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Murphy" <gmurphy@raex.com>
To: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>; "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 9:42 AM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
> To: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 8:50 AM
> Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>
>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: George Murphy [mailto:gmurphy@raex.com]
>>> Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 6:13 AM
>>
>>> Some would answer #1 that it's never appropriate. In that
>>> case the details
>>> of the Schiavo case are irrelevant. That is a consistent
>>> position to take
>>> but those who do so should say that clearly & not confuse the
>>> issue by
>>> debating the husband's motives, &c.
>>
>> In such cases it is always appropriate to look at motivation. Only in
>> some ivory tower philosophical discussion does this kind of separation
>> of issues arise. For Schiavo, this isn't a theoretical discussion.
>
> If we don't have some sound theory (theological, scientific, legal &c as
> appropriate) to start with we're likely to make a mess of things: Hard
> cases make bad law. You then end up with judges making decisions based on
> their personal opinions, vague ideas about "fairness" &c.
>
> IF one holds that sustenance for someone in a PVS should NEVER be withheld
> then the motives of anybody wanting to do one thing or another in a
> particular case are indeed irrelevant to what you think should be done.
> I.e., if you hold that view you've decided that Terri Schiavo should
> continue to receive nutrition & hydration before you know anything about
> the particulars of the situation, & knowing those particulars won't change
> your view. I am not here critcizing that position but just saying what it
> is.
>
> For a person who holds that view, talking about the husband's motivation
> &c may be a legitimate way to gain political leverage to achieve the
> desired end. It also clouds the issue & makes it more likely that the
> next such case will also be decided on issues of motivation &c rather than
> on fundamental principles.
>
> OTOH, if you think that withholding of sustenance in such a situation
> sometimes IS justified then you'll want their to be some reasonable clear
> criteria for deciding when & when not, and issues of possible conflict of
> interest for parties who are involved (relatives &c) then may be germane.
>
> I make no apology for being a theorist. We do have our place.
>
> Shalom
> George
> http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 19 10:36:55 2005