|
Fla SC *UNANIMOUSLY* ruled that Jeb Bush's
"right-to-live-as-a-mental-vegetable" law is
unconstitutional. They ruled it violates the separation
of powers. It does not pay to piss off your Supreme Court
Next up: Jeb Bush pushes an amendment to the state
constitution allowing the state to force people to stay
on life support.
But the question remains: who pays for it?
Florida's high court rules Terri's law unconstitutional
TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida Supreme Court today struck
down a law that was rushed through the Legislature last
fall to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked up
to a feeding tube against her husband's wishes.
The unanimous court said the law that kept Terri
Schiavo alive violated the separation of powers between
the judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches.
Lower courts had ruled that Michael Schiavo could have
the tube removed, but the Legislature passed the law to
overrule the courts. Gov. Jeb Bush then used the law to
order the tube reinserted. The court's decision came
just weeks after oral arguments.
It was not immediately known if the ruling would clear
the way for the tube's final removal. An attorney for
Terri Schiavo's parents, who want her kept alive, would
not speculate. Michael Schiavo's attorneys did not
immediately return calls seeking comment.
"It is without question an invasion of the authority of
the judicial branch for the Legislature to pass a law
that allows the executive branch to interfere with the
final judicial determination in a case," Chief Justice
Barbara Pariente wrote for the court. "That is
precisely what occurred here."
The court said the law improperly delegated legislative
powers to the governor, who had complete authority to
issue or lift a stay.
Terri Schiavo, who lives in a Clearwater nursing home,
can breathe on her own but relies on a feeding and
hydration tube to live. Courts have concluded she is in
a "persistent vegetative state," but maneuvering over
her fate has produced a closely watched right-to-die fight.
The 40-year-old woman left no written instructions
before suffering brain damage when her heart stopped
beating 14 years ago. But in Florida a person's wishes
must be honored even if they are expressed orally.
Schiavo's parents disagree with their son-in-law about
her wishes, insisting their daughter wanted to live and
could be helped with therapy. Courts have generally
sided with Michael Schiavo, but parents Bob and Mary
Schindler have won stays that have kept their daughter
alive.
2004 Orlando Sentinel Communications
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 23 Sep 2004, LeMod Pol posted:
Florida's high court rules Terri's law unconstitutional
TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida Supreme Court today struck
down a law that was rushed through the Legislature last
fall to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked up
to a feeding tube against her husband's wishes.
...Courts have generally
sided with Michael Schiavo, but parents Bob and Mary
Schindler have won stays that have kept their daughter alive.=20
=A9 2004 Orlando Sentinel Communications
Parents Bob and Mary Schindler have won stays that have kept their
brain-dead daughter brain-dead.
|
| |
| |
Parents Bob and Mary Schindler have won stays that have kept their
brain-dead daughter brain-dead.
Remind me not to retire in Florida. Dunno about you, but I'd rather be
brain-dead with a slight chance of recovery, than totally dead with *no*
chance of recovery.
Stuart Warren
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:22:31 -0500, Stuart Warren wrote:
Parents Bob and Mary Schindler have won stays that have kept their
brain-dead daughter brain-dead.
Remind me not to retire in Florida. Dunno about you, but I'd rather be
brain-dead with a slight chance of recovery, than totally dead with *no*
chance of recovery.
Stuart Warren
Perhaps you misunderstand the situation then. No one would force you to
live or die should you document your wish prior to an illness. After
brain death everyone attempts to carry out the wishes they believe you
expressed in life.
The Terri Schiavo case consists of two groups of people each trying to do
what they believe the lady would have desired had she expressed her
wishes. Both sides have honest motives but here the parents are trying to
overrule spousal authority.
The Florida Supreme court didn't rule on death, they ruled that the
husband would know best what his wife wanted. Christian zealots then
parlayed the grief of all concerned by intervening with the coercive power
of the state launching a conflict to keep their names in the news.
You are in no danger but this should encourage you to write a will now,
while you're still able and mentally fit.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, "Stuart Warren" <email@somewhere.com> wrote:
Remind me not to retire in Florida. Dunno about
you, but I'd rather be brain-dead with a slight
chance of recovery, than totally dead with *no*
chance of recovery. Stuart Warren
This is easy to accomplish, not least including in Florida, by the
simple expedient of a clearly-stated advance health-care directive and
by making the related financial arrangements. Its a "Duh!" kind of
Thing.
|
| |
| |
Curly Surmudgeon <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.24.10.18.24.349189@curlysurmudgeon.com>...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:22:31 -0500, Stuart Warren wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstand the situation then. No one would force you to
live or die should you document your wish prior to an illness. After
brain death everyone attempts to carry out the wishes they believe you
expressed in life.
The Terri Schiavo case consists of two groups of people each trying to do
what they believe the lady would have desired had she expressed her
wishes. Both sides have honest motives but here the parents are trying to
overrule spousal authority.
The Florida Supreme court didn't rule on death, they ruled that the
husband would know best what his wife wanted. Christian zealots then
parlayed the grief of all concerned by intervening with the coercive power
of the state launching a conflict to keep their names in the news.
You are in no danger but this should encourage you to write a will now,
while you're still able and mentally fit.
Not so much a will as a durable power of attorney, or what's sometimes
called a "living will". Nothing in a will takes effect until after
you're dead, sometimes months after.
A durable power of attorney is called "durable" because it continues
to be effective even if you later become incapacitated. This allows
someone you trust to make things like health care decisions for you if
you end up comatose.
--
Chris Green
|
| |
| |
I'm sick of reading about laws & rights about this dear lady, Terri
Schiavo!
If this woman is reeeeealy loved, then her go! Let her go with the
dignity she should have had years ago when the conclusion was that she
was brain dead.
Curly Surmudgeon <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.24.10.18.24.349189@curlysurmudgeon.com>...
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:22:31 -0500, Stuart Warren wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstand the situation then. No one would force you to
live or die should you document your wish prior to an illness. After
brain death everyone attempts to carry out the wishes they believe you
expressed in life.
The Terri Schiavo case consists of two groups of people each trying to do
what they believe the lady would have desired had she expressed her
wishes. Both sides have honest motives but here the parents are trying to
overrule spousal authority.
The Florida Supreme court didn't rule on death, they ruled that the
husband would know best what his wife wanted. Christian zealots then
parlayed the grief of all concerned by intervening with the coercive power
of the state launching a conflict to keep their names in the news.
You are in no danger but this should encourage you to write a will now,
while you're still able and mentally fit.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004, Stuart Warren wrote:
Parents Bob and Mary Schindler have won stays that have kept their
brain-dead daughter brain-dead.
Remind me not to retire in Florida. Dunno about you, but I'd rather be
brain-dead with a slight chance of recovery, than totally dead with *no*
chance of recovery.
On what do you base your assumption that there is even "a slight chance of
recovery"?
|
| |
| |
I agree with this ruling. Sorry.
The woman married, then went into a coma. Her husband is the go-to person on
what to do with her. I understand the anxiety of the parents, but the
husband is the closest kin she has. It is a very difficult decision to make
for anybody, and the decision to leave her plugged in or to unplug her are
equally difficult decisions to be confronted with.
The State has no ability to know what the wishes of the woman are, and the
parents are likewise out of the loop on this issue. The husband is the only
one that can even remotely presume to know what the woman's choice is or
would be. If the parents actually had something from the woman that said she
wanted to be plugged in to maintain her life, then they could overrule the
husband, but they don't have anything that states this and the husband says
she told him she wouldn't want to live like that. I wouldn't want to live
like that and my wife wouldn't want to live like that and my children
wouldn't want to live like that. I pray to God that I never have to face the
decision to pull the plug, or fight with anybody about this issue.
As a conservative republican, I am probably at odds with my party on this
one. Oh well ...
Fla SC *UNANIMOUSLY* ruled that Jeb Bush's
"right-to-live-as-a-mental-vegetable" law is
unconstitutional. They ruled it violates the separation
of powers. It does not pay to piss off your Supreme Court
Next up: Jeb Bush pushes an amendment to the state
constitution allowing the state to force people to stay
on life support.
But the question remains: who pays for it?
Florida's high court rules Terri's law unconstitutional
TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida Supreme Court today struck
down a law that was rushed through the Legislature last
fall to keep a severely brain-damaged woman hooked up
to a feeding tube against her husband's wishes.
The unanimous court said the law that kept Terri
Schiavo alive violated the separation of powers between
the judicial branch and the legislative and executive branches.
Lower courts had ruled that Michael Schiavo could have
the tube removed, but the Legislature passed the law to
overrule the courts. Gov. Jeb Bush then used the law to
order the tube reinserted. The court's decision came
just weeks after oral arguments.
It was not immediately known if the ruling would clear
the way for the tube's final removal. An attorney for
Terri Schiavo's parents, who want her kept alive, would
not speculate. Michael Schiavo's attorneys did not
immediately return calls seeking comment.
"It is without question an invasion of the authority of
the judicial branch for the Legislature to pass a law
that allows the executive branch to interfere with the
final judicial determination in a case," Chief Justice
Barbara Pariente wrote for the court. "That is
precisely what occurred here."
The court said the law improperly delegated legislative
powers to the governor, who had complete authority to
issue or lift a stay.
Terri Schiavo, who lives in a Clearwater nursing home,
can breathe on her own but relies on a feeding and
hydration tube to live. Courts have concluded she is in
a "persistent vegetative state," but maneuvering over
her fate has produced a closely watched right-to-die fight.
The 40-year-old woman left no written instructions
before suffering brain damage when her heart stopped
beating 14 years ago. But in Florida a person's wishes
must be honored even if they are expressed orally.
Schiavo's parents disagree with their son-in-law about
her wishes, insisting their daughter wanted to live and
could be helped with therapy. Courts have generally
sided with Michael Schiavo, but parents Bob and Mary
Schindler have won stays that have kept their daughter
alive.
2004 Orlando Sentinel Communications
--
LP
In politics, moderation is the best policy
|
| |
| |
Parents Bob and Mary Schindler have won stays that have kept their
brain-dead daughter brain-dead.
Remind me not to retire in Florida. Dunno about you, but I'd rather be
brain-dead with a slight chance of recovery, than totally dead with *no*
chance of recovery.
Stuart Warren
Stuart, there is no known chance that she will ever recover. She is brain
dead and will forever be brain dead. She supposedly told her husband at some
point that she would not want to live like that. Perhaps the husband would
not want her to suffer like that, and he is trying to end the suffering.
I say let the husband decide.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 02:22:31 -0500, Stuart Warren wrote:
Perhaps you misunderstand the situation then. No one would force you to
live or die should you document your wish prior to an illness. After
brain death everyone attempts to carry out the wishes they believe you
expressed in life.
The Terri Schiavo case consists of two groups of people each trying to do
what they believe the lady would have desired had she expressed her
wishes. Both sides have honest motives but here the parents are trying to
overrule spousal authority.
The Florida Supreme court didn't rule on death, they ruled that the
husband would know best what his wife wanted. Christian zealots then
parlayed the grief of all concerned by intervening with the coercive power
of the state launching a conflict to keep their names in the news.
You are in no danger but this should encourage you to write a will now,
while you're still able and mentally fit.
You have laid out the issues very well, there is the husband on one side and
the parents on the other. Both are well-meaning and honorable, but they have
different ideas on what the woman would have wanted done with her if this
situation ever arose.
The issue before the court should be which authority should be making this
decision on her behalf. I think it is the husband that should prevail. As a
Christian zealot, I might come to a different decision than the husband
comes to, but it is his decision to make, not mine and certainly not the
State's.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 03:18:25 -0700 I used my godlike powers to observe
the following from Curly Surmudgeon <curly@curlysurmudgeon.com>:
The Florida Supreme court didn't rule on death, they ruled that the
husband would know best what his wife wanted. Christian zealots then
parlayed the grief of all concerned by intervening with the coercive power
of the state launching a conflict to keep their names in the news.
And the last name of one of those zealots just happened to be Bush.
--
"Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."
- The Who
"Who? What? There's an old saying in Guatemala. I know
it's in Nicaragua. Meet he new boss. We don't get fooled
again in teenage wasteland."
- George W. Bush
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 09:05:26 -0700, Christopher Green wrote:
Not so much a will as a durable power of attorney, or what's sometimes
called a "living will". Nothing in a will takes effect until after you're
dead, sometimes months after.
Ah, right, thanks for the correction. Not being a lawyer I'm not up on
terminology.
A durable power of attorney is called "durable" because it continues to be
effective even if you later become incapacitated. This allows someone you
trust to make things like health care decisions for you if you end up
comatose.
Good advice for everyone. A bit of research shows that this can be done
without lawyers, check out http://www.nolo.com for self-help legal books.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 11:30:45 -0700, Jeff Strickland wrote:
I agree with this ruling. Sorry.
The woman married, then went into a coma. Her husband is the go-to person
on what to do with her. I understand the anxiety of the parents, but the
husband is the closest kin she has. It is a very difficult decision to
make for anybody, and the decision to leave her plugged in or to unplug
her are equally difficult decisions to be confronted with.
The State has no ability to know what the wishes of the woman are, and the
parents are likewise out of the loop on this issue. The husband is the
only one that can even remotely presume to know what the woman's choice is
or would be. If the parents actually had something from the woman that
said she wanted to be plugged in to maintain her life, then they could
overrule the husband, but they don't have anything that states this and
the husband says she told him she wouldn't want to live like that. I
wouldn't want to live like that and my wife wouldn't want to live like
that and my children wouldn't want to live like that. I pray to God that I
never have to face the decision to pull the plug, or fight with anybody
about this issue.
That's the true horror, for the living, not the dead. I can't imagine
having to live with my wife of 35 years being in a 10-year coma from which
I know she's never going to recover. Stephen King couldn't come up with a
more horrifying plot.
As a conservative republican, I am probably at odds with my party on this
one. Oh well ...
More people should think for themselves rather than swallow the party
line. There would be a lot less turmoil if more did the same.
|
| |
| |
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<10l8q0vbj1imbab@corp.supernews.com>...
I agree with this ruling. Sorry.
The woman married, then went into a coma. Her husband is the go-to person on
what to do with her. I understand the anxiety of the parents, but the
husband is the closest kin she has. It is a very difficult decision to make
for anybody, and the decision to leave her plugged in or to unplug her are
equally difficult decisions to be confronted with.
The State has no ability to know what the wishes of the woman are, and the
parents are likewise out of the loop on this issue. The husband is the only
one that can even remotely presume to know what the woman's choice is or
would be. If the parents actually had something from the woman that said she
wanted to be plugged in to maintain her life, then they could overrule the
husband, but they don't have anything that states this and the husband says
she told him she wouldn't want to live like that. I wouldn't want to live
like that and my wife wouldn't want to live like that and my children
wouldn't want to live like that. I pray to God that I never have to face the
decision to pull the plug, or fight with anybody about this issue.
As a conservative republican, I am probably at odds with my party on this
one. Oh well ...
I can sympathize with the husband and the parents. To those who have
lost children, I know how difficult that is, as I am one. To the
spouses who have lost their partners, I can only guess what that pain
might be like. I have seen others try to deal with it, but never
experienced it. I think one of the problems that the court probably
debated was the motive. Medical documentation asside, the husband
may, or may not, have ulterior motives for wishing to let her die that
the parents would probably not have. What were Terri's wishes?
Merely speculation at this point. There are the religious (or lack
thereof, as may apply) of the husband and the parents. Given the
conflict, the court had to make this difficult and unpopular decision.
I agree with you, Jeff, this is a decision I would hope to never have
to make.
|
| |
| |
In misc.legal Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
As a conservative republican, I am probably at odds with my party on this
one. Oh well ...
Probably, but the bulk of Republicans went crazy some years ago, so I
wouldn't worry much about it.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
|
| |
| |
In misc.legal Jeff Strickland <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
The issue before the court should be which authority should be making this
decision on her behalf. I think it is the husband that should prevail. As a
Christian zealot, I might come to a different decision than the husband
comes to, but it is his decision to make, not mine and certainly not the
State's.
You may be a Christian, but if you're willing to let people make their
own decisions, then you're not a zealot :)
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
|
| |
| |
the parents are likewise out of the loop on this issue. The husband is the only
one that can even remotely presume to know what the woman's choice is or
would be.
The parents are not allowed to be "in the loop." They are fighting to
keep her alive but are being ignored by the courts.
The husband's new lover will be pleased to hear that the end is in sight.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, CongaMike wrote:
The husband's new lover will be pleased to hear that the end is in sight.
New? Are you sure about that?
Haven't they been together for some time?
Imagine being prevented from marrying in this situation.
I hope he is soon able to get on with his life. He has been robbed of
the domestic felicity he desires for far too long.
It has been a travesty of "family values."
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 14:25:25 -0500, CongaMike wrote:
The parents are not allowed to be "in the loop." They are fighting to keep
her alive but are being ignored by the courts.
The parents have been involved for years and their
The husband's new lover will be pleased to hear that the end is in sight.
How can you possibly make such a inhumane judgement with absolutely no
information to support it? Is this your inner self you are projecting
onto another?
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, CongaMike wrote:
New? Are you sure about that?
Haven't they been together for some time?
Imagine being prevented from marrying in this situation.
I hope he is soon able to get on with his life. He has been robbed of
the domestic felicity he desires for far too long.
It has been a travesty of "family values."
I hate to agree with Carol, but on this issue I do. The husband is getting
worked over by his in-laws.
|
| |
| |
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1040930181646.15197B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004, CongaMike wrote:
New? Are you sure about that?
Haven't they been together for some time?
Imagine being prevented from marrying in this situation.
Not to start an argument, but...
He hasn't been prevented from re-marrying. He is free to divorce his
wife. The fact that she is legally incompetent means very little.
Incompetent people can be sued. The procedure may vary from state to
state, but essentially the plaintiff petitions a court with
jurisdiction (typically a probate court) to appoint a guardian to
represent the person (and perhaps a guardian ad litem as well). Then
the plaintiff files and serves process on the guardian, and the suit
commences almost as if she were competent.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 17:13:25 -0700, James Alexander wrote:
Not to start an argument, but...
He hasn't been prevented from re-marrying. He is free to divorce his
wife.
Legally, yes, but that is abandoning the husk of his wife. Emotionally
abandonment is a lot harder.
The fact that she is legally incompetent means very little.
To an objective, unemotionally disinvolved, observer only.
Incompetent people can be sued. The procedure may vary from state to
state, but essentially the plaintiff petitions a court with jurisdiction
(typically a probate court) to appoint a guardian to represent the person
(and perhaps a guardian ad litem as well). Then the plaintiff files and
serves process on the guardian, and the suit commences almost as if she
were competent.
Requiring a court to resolve family matters adds an unnecessary
complication to an already horrible situation.
-- Regards, Curly
----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://curlysurmudgeon.com http://curlysurmudgeon.com/blog/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| |
| |
Carol Lee Smith <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.1040930181646.15197B-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
Not to start an argument, but...
He hasn't been prevented from re-marrying. He is free to divorce his
wife. The fact that she is legally incompetent means very little.
Incompetent people can be sued. The procedure may vary from state to
state, but essentially the plaintiff petitions a court with
jurisdiction (typically a probate court) to appoint a guardian to
represent the person (and perhaps a guardian ad litem as well). Then
the plaintiff files and serves process on the guardian, and the suit
commences almost as if she were competent.
If he has to get a divorce from his brain dead wife before he can get on
with his own life, then he is being prevented from re-marrying.
If he could pull the plug on his brain dead wife in accordance to the wishes
he says she made before she went brain dead, then hd could remarry without
the need for a divorce. And, if he divorces her, then he can no longer have
an influence over her care.
He doesn't want a divorce ...
|
| |
| |
|
