Text 10762, 61 rader
Skriven 2005-03-31 16:01:02 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av ED CONNELL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
->  EC> If the convicted murderer expresses a preference for it, and if the
->  EC> murderer has no functioning brain stem and cerebral cortex at the time,
->  EC> then there is some degree of an analogy.  Otherwise, no.

-> The analogy is that the state is killing someone.

If you insist on framing it that way, the analogy should at least be
made a little more accurate by saying that the state refused to
intervene when she killed herself.

I fully realize that there are sincere, well-meaning people who firmly
believe that no patient should be allowed to die, even if they do it
passively by refusing medicine, surgery, or feeding tubes rather than
actively by poison, gunshot, or hanging.  They are free to make that
choice in their own lives.  But our nation has allowed patients to do
exactly that.  The scope of that right, the situations it applies to,
the procedures to be used or not used vary somewhat from state to state.
But the basic principle exists in all states, and long ago was
determined to be a constitutional right.

There are other people who feel that even if a patient can make that
decision no one ELSE should be allowed to make the decision FOR them.
Apparently there are still people who think Schiavo died because the
husband "wanted" to "kill" her.  The state of Florida, like all or
nearly all states, has a defined procedure created within its legal
system.  It was followed.  The court found clear and convincing evidence
that removal of the tube was HER expressed wish.

And then there are others who think that the barrier should have been
higher, that her intent didn't matter unless it was in writing, that the
judge should have required five witnesses instead of three, or whatever.
Under our legal system, they have the right to legislate higher
requirements.  When the Nancy Cruzan case went to the Supreme Court, in
fact, THAT was the issue the Court had to determine.  Missouri realized
that it had to allow patients to choose to refuse treatment, but it
legislated a higher standard of proof ("clear and convincing evidence")
than the one that was being used.  Missouri then refused to allow food
and water to be cut off for Cruzan, based on the fact that there was
only one witness who testified as to her expressed intent.  The Supreme
Court ruled that the state could do that.  It also held that there is no
legal distinction between food and water and other medical care.  It is
an interesting decision to read, especially the opinions of Scalia and
O'Connor.

So if people want to quibble with the court decision in 2000, and want
to substitute their own opinions of how much evidence is enough, that's
find.  Doesn't change the outcome.  And they are free to seek to become
judges themselves.  But the state law, the federal law, and the United
States Constitution were all followed in this matter.  Given the
existing laws and judicial precedents, every court decision was correct.
If at any point in the last two weeks any judge had ordered the feeding
tube reinserted, that judge would be overstepping authority and acting
in an improper manner -- an "activist" judge, to use the going phrase.

But Randall Terry and the organizations who were orchestrating the
spectacle in Florida the last two weeks have a much broader agenda than
simply bumping up the evidence requirements for advance medical
directives.

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)