NationStates Jolt Archive

OK so they locked our fun once, lets try to start back up again...

Irony: Terri suffered heart failure, which lead to her brain damage, because she was anorexic and "refused to eat"
now she has died because she was "refused to eat"

Discuss

If food was as delicious as this little piece irony, Terri would still be alive.

stupid another cuban boy case.

did you believe in taking th tube out? any1 can answer. :fluffle:

any1 here? :confused:

i guess not. leaving unless any1 answers.xxx

did you believe in taking th tube out? any1 can answer. :fluffle:

yes because the person with POWER OF ATTORNEY decided that is what was wanted therefore, by U.S. law the tube HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT!

that is the law, i don't care if he wanted to get remarried and that is why he chose to take it out, the law is the law and it is there so HMO's, insurance companies, and Doctors don't get to choose which patient live or die!

she was bulemic

she screwed up her chemical balance by throwing up her food.

so now do you feel ashamed of yourself?

she was bulemic

she screwed up her chemical balance by throwing up her food.

so now do you feel ashamed of yourself?

no i don't.
eating dissorders are theSTUPIDIST SHIT EVER. i have personal experiance with them, and i don't understand what would drive you to them but thtas a different topic.
oh and i'm sorry i got the dissease wrong... kill me, i read an article saying it was anorexia, big difference! she still did it to herself.

now then gadges.

i hope we all feel ashamed because obviously it is a terrible thing to live in a democracy and discuss opinions and stuff. we should all go to zimbabwe for a holiday. i heard it's nice at voting time.

no i don't.
eating dissorders are theSTUPIDIST SHIT EVER. i have personal experiance with them, and i don't understand what would drive you to them but thtas a different topic.
oh and i'm sorry i got the dissease wrong... kill me, i read an article saying it was anorexia, big difference! she still did it to herself.

I agree, she did it to herself but - some people cannot help it in regard to eating disorders. It's an obsession and somewhat of an addiction, all in one.

and i don't understand what would drive you to them but thtas a different topic.

Anorexia nervosa and bulemia nervosa are both mental illnesses.

Anorexia nervosa and bulemia nervosa are both mental illnesses.

i Know, and as i said i have personal experiance with eating dissorders, i just can't rap my head around the fact that someone feels so compeled to impress someone or to just loose weight that they willingly and knowingly hurt themselves. i am not a person who gives a shit what people say, my name is Tim and i am was really short untill age 13 and still am very skinny so i had to deal with "tiny Tim" and much much worse all my life and it never affected me. so i just have trouble identifieing with the mindset, i do however understand the addiction that takes place after the habit is formed

I actually know a girl with a eating disorder, she coming from a really screwed up household.

She cant keep a job down, she looks fucked up naked, like old, her skin is saggy, its really weird. Her teeth are sorta going rotten.

The thing is she would be pretty if not for the puking and the crash diets and the binging.


..... i am going to makea thread on this .....

Anorexia nervosa and bulemia nervosa are both mental illnesses.

wow. sanity & accurate statements of fact in a "Terri" thread?

Are you sure this is allowed? :D

I assume NO ONE here knows Terri Schiavo personally. So would someone intelligently explain why this is even news worthy on a national level? It is a PERSONAL tragedy for her surviving family and friends, it is not a NATIONAL issue.

However it is certainly a NATIONAL tragedy that 100,000 Iraqi's have been killed and nearly 2000 of our own soldiers lost during our INABILITY to find WMD. You would do well to consider this WMD threat was considered to be IMMINENT by the Bush administration and it represented the LEGAL pretense for military action in Iraq.

Resolving this credibility gap would seem to me to be an issue of NATIONAL importance if only considering the costs in terms of life and capital. YET I haven't seen anything on the evening news about it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1338726,00.html

Again please advise as to why there is now a national debate on a PERSONAL issue and NOT a peep on a pressing and continuing NATIONAL tragedy...

Thanks,

ken

I assume NO ONE here knows Terri Schiavo personally. So would someone intelligently explain why this is even news worthy on a national level? It is a PERSONAL tragedy for her surviving family and friends, it is not a NATIONAL issue.

However it is certainly a NATIONAL tragedy that 100,000 Iraqi's have been killed and nearly 2000 of our own soldiers lost during our INABILITY to find WMD. You would do well to consider this WMD threat was considered to be IMMINENT by the Bush administration and it represented the LEGAL pretense for military action in Iraq.

Resolving this credibility gap would seem to me to be an issue of NATIONAL importance if only considering the costs in terms of life and capital. YET I haven't seen anything on the evening news about it.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1338726,00.html

Again please advise as to why there is now a national debate on a PERSONAL issue and NOT a peep on a pressing and continuing NATIONAL tragedy...

Thanks,

ken

Good point. Well said.

(2 tips: use more formating rather than caps and don't do the little manual signature (there is someone else that does that you don't want to be associated with ;) )).

Ken

you're an ass clown.

because of what congress did and what the president did this is national news.

go bitch about the unjustified war somewhere else, maybe if you had done something before George decided we needed a war we could not be at this point. however you didn't, therefore we are well past the point of no return, if we pull out now, just like we did in the 80's in afganistan, we will have a destroyed nation in an area that already doesn't like us.

look at history before you bitch about something you know little about...

ass clown

maybe if you had done something before George decided we needed a war we could not be at this point.
Plenty of people did do stuff. The administration didn't listen.

ass clown
I'm not a mod, but I believe this constitutes flaming.

Plenty of people did do stuff. The administration didn't listen.

I'm not a mod, but I believe this constitutes flaming.

i said ken didn't do anything. i did things, he proboly didn't.

flame me, it's a fucking web forum and i'm not allowed to cuss, what has this world come to...

oh yeah, i forgot.

iflame me, it's a fucking web forum and i'm not allowed to cuss, what has this world come to...

oh yeah, i forgot.
Insults are flames. Flaming is against the rules. Is it that hard to understand?

Insults are flames. Flaming is against the rules. Is it that hard to understand?

no, i understand the rules, i was kidding in my last post, but ken can defend himselfi call things how i see 'em and when i see someone with such a skewed, uneducated Point of View, it angers me.

plus i didn't just insult him i gave a reason for my anger, and a well thought out reason at that.

if i offended anyone i appologise, i didn't mean to be an ass clown

Tim,

I'm not an "ass clown", that would merely be your opinion of me based on a small comment on a web forum, making you that much easer to dismiss.

You might consider that "congress and the president" would NOT have done a dam thing(nor did Tom Delay with his own father years ago http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/27/politics/main683332.shtml ) if this did NOT have potential value as a national news story offering "useful" light on Bush's so called "humanity". You might be seen at a minimum 'naive' to assume any less than that.

As far as "bitching about an unjustified war somewhere else", you might read my post again and recognise I was merely pointing out the hypocritical nature of the massive outpouring of NATIONAL concern for one Florida woman vs. the remarkable lack of 'interest' in 100,000 dead Iraqis and almost 2000 America casualties (102,000 vs. 1).

AS for your specious argument, that unless I did something before the war, that this somehow mitigates my right to draw conclusions today- You will do better using your false logic elsewhere and stick to what I have written else you will be ignored.

Be well,

Ken

I'm sorry, power of attorney is fine and all, but there is no way to morally put the life of a person into someone else's hands without their written consent. I'd trust my girlfriend to make the best decision, but I'd hope the courts would NOT trust her to, based just on her word, because she could say anything.

she would be pretty if not for the puking and the crash diets and the binging.

For some reason, I found this absolutely fuckin' hysterical.

I'm sorry, power of attorney is fine and all, but there is no way to morally put the life of a person into someone else's hands without their written consent.

Uni,

I'm curious if you have considered how often you do EXACTLY that many times a day. Sometimes your holding anothers life, sometimes your life is being held(always without DIRECT written consent). Thus for many contexts that we all experience every day it's obvious that one CAN do what your THOUGHT suggests is NOT possible. So please help me see why it is you THINK there is no way to morally hold a life in your own hands without anothers written consent. Thanks

I'd trust my girlfriend to make the best decision, but I'd hope the courts would NOT trust her to, based just on her word, because she could say anything.Do you LOVE your girlfriend and does she love you is really the question. To be moral is NOT a matter of religion or even law-it's a matter of LOVE. If she truely loved you wouldn't she NATURALLY do the most moral thing?

Beyond that if you KNOW she can't be trusted with such a choice, it's your RESPONSIBILITY to do what is necessary to ensure YOUR wishes are preserved, should you be in Mrs. Schiavo's position. But the fact that she's a MRS. should have alerted you to a major point that separates your opinion from the scenario in Florida.

I ask you, if a person makes no provisions, is it society's place to fix their judgement not to? Wouldn't it be best left to those caring people who were entrusted by that INDIVIDUAL to guide their WAKING life? For example if you live with your parents- they choose, when you get married, your spouse chooses. Simple really- When we make a choice to get married the connection between man and wife supercedes the mother and father. I think even the BIBLE says so...

Which again is why it's interesting to me that the "Religious RIGHT" has allowed themselves to be brought to see things so out of FOCUS.

Be well,

Ken

yes because the person with POWER OF ATTORNEY decided that is what was wanted therefore, by U.S. law the tube HAS TO BE TAKEN OUT!Except for one little, itsy bitsy, inconvenient thing called FACT.

FACT: there was NO power of attorney, giving Michael Schiavo the right to kill his wife.

that is the law, i don't care if he wanted to get remarried and that is why he chose to take it out, the law is the lawExcept for another little inconvenient fact...the State of Florida does NOT have a "Right to Die" law. Never has, and now never will.
...and it is there so HMO's, insurance companies, and Doctors don't get to choose which patient live or die!Ah, but judges and adulterous spouses do get to choose?

Except for one little, itsy bitsy, inconvenient thing called FACT.

FACT: there was NO power of attorney, giving Michael Schiavo the right to kill his wife.

Except for another little inconvenient fact...the State of Florida does NOT have a "Right to Die" law. Never has, and now never will.
Ah, but judges and adulterous spouses do get to choose?


Gee, when did you discover facts? I thought you were allergic.

By what must be pure coincidence, you are right about the power of attorney. That has nothing to do with it.

Florida did have a very clear statute to deal with exactly this situation. It was properly applied.

You are welcome to disagree with Mrs. Schiavo's husband and the 30 or more court rulings on this issue without a single fact to support you. That is your right. Idiotic. Unreasonable. But your right.

But the respecting of Mrs. Schiavo's right to die was entirely legal.

Gee, when did you discover facts? I thought you were allergic.Funny, but everything I have expressed so far on this case is based on FACTS. Just because you fell hook, line and sinker for the murderous statements of Michael Schiavo, doesn't mean that he was the one with Terri's best interests. That, by the way, makes you his accomplice.

By what must be pure coincidence, you are right about the power of attorney. That has nothing to do with it.Agreed. Now explain it to your fellow death-worshipper, to whom I was replying.

Florida did have a very clear statute to deal with exactly this situation. It was properly applied.I believe you must refer to Florida Statute 756 (http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0765/ch0765.htm), which states:
(3) "Close personal friend" means any person 18 years of age or older who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient, and who presents an affidavit to the health care facility or to the attending or treating physician stating that he or she is a friend of the patient; is willing and able to become involved in the patient's health care; and has maintained such regular contact with the patient so as to be familiar with the patient's activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs.

(4) "End-stage condition" means an irreversible condition that is caused by injury, disease, or illness which has resulted in progressively severe and permanent deterioration, and which, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, treatment of the condition would be ineffective.

(5) "Health care decision" means:

(a) Informed consent, refusal of consent, or withdrawal of consent to any and all health care, including life-prolonging procedures.
...
(9) "Informed consent" means consent voluntarily given by a person after a sufficient explanation and disclosure of the subject matter involved to enable that person to have a general understanding of the treatment or procedure and the medically acceptable alternatives, including the substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures, and to make a knowing health care decision without coercion or undue influence.
...
(12) "Persistent vegetative state" means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:

(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.

(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
...
(17) "Terminal condition" means a condition caused by injury, disease, or illness from which there is no reasonable medical probability of recovery and which, without treatment, can be expected to cause death.
- I challenge anyone to show how Michael Schiavo fulfilled the language of paragraph 3. Trying to (and ultimately succeeding in) have his wife killed is far removed from having special care and concern for Terri.

- As for paragraph number 4, of course her situation became irreversible...after all, it's hard to reverse a condition like she had, once treatment and rehabilitation were denied to her by her "loving husband."

- Paragraphs 5 and 9 are good ones...how did Terri make an informed consent on a health care decision? All we have is Michael's worthless word telling us she told him she would have wanted to die. Sorry, Michael, as they say in Florida, that dog don't hunt.

- Paragraph 12(a), requires the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior. The video tapes of Terri with her family, clearly show a woman who, while disabled, clearly recognized her family (cognitive behavior) and smiled at them (voluntary action.)

-Finally, number 17...let's just say, without any treatment other than feeding, (and everyone has to be fed, right?) Terri Schindler survived 15 years. Seems to me like she was NOT terminal, unless you count the last 14 days.

You are welcome to disagree with Mrs. Schiavo's husband and the 30 or more court rulings on this issue without a single fact to support you. That is your right. Idiotic. Unreasonable. But your right.I will not dignify your insult by responding. However, I (and millions more) had a very reasonable request: that Michael Schiavo do the honorable thing, and walk away from the situation, leaving Terri to her parents' care. What is so unreasonable about that?

But the respecting of Mrs. Schiavo's right to die was entirely legal.This has got to be the most overused line by the worshippers of death. "Her wishes" were only so, because her "husband" said they were so. All of Terri's CLOSE family, who knew her a lot longer than Michael ever did, and who knew the character of her beliefs, agree that, as a devout Catholic, Terri would have never asked to be euthanized.

But let's say, for the sake of argument that Terri, indeed, would have wanted to die in that situation. Why did Michael wait until right after he collected on the malpractice settlement? Why, if she really wouldn't have wanted to live in such a state, why didn't Michael allow her to die in 1990? Moreover, what happened to the money from the settlement? $700k of that settlement was slated for her medical expenses...medical expenses that were suspended almost immediately after he received the money. In fact, Michael Schiavo has paid George Felos handsomely throughout the case...where did the money come from? Why wasn't the money spent on her rehabilitation? Why did he suddenly remember her "wishes"...shortly after receiving the settlement?

Those are the questions the media (and folks like you,) haven't asked, and don't seem to want an answer for, because the answer makes you uncomfortable. Your not-so-silent acquiescence in the murder of a defenseless woman is a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers of the United States, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence (http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/independ/declar.html):
WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness...
in killing Terri Schindler, the Government, acting on behalf of her "husband," denied her of the very first unalienable right she was endowed with, and did so with a cheering section.

Funny, but everything I have expressed so far on this case is based on FACTS. Just because you fell hook, line and sinker for the murderous statements of Michael Schiavo, doesn't mean that he was the one with Terri's best interests. That, by the way, makes you his accomplice.

Agreed. Now explain it to your fellow death-worshipper, to whom I was replying.

I'm a death-worshiping accomplice to murder -- me and the 40 or so judges that have actually reviewed the evidence and ruled on this case. :rolleyes: If I were deserving of it, it would be an honor to be in such august company and an "accomplice" to protecting liberty and justice.

I will respond to the rest of your drivel only to demonstrate how idiotic it is.

I believe you must refer to Florida Statute 756 (http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0765/ch0765.htm), which states:


Learn to read a statute. You are quoting the Definitions section of Florida Statute 765. :rolleyes:

Those terms and definitions only have meaning as used in the statute. That is why the section you selective quote starts:

765.101 Definitions.--As used in this chapter:

Care to find an actual provision of the statute that was violated or are you done making an ass of yourself?

- I challenge anyone to show how Michael Schiavo fulfilled the language of paragraph 3. Trying to (and ultimately succeeding in) have his wife killed is far removed from having special care and concern for Terri.

A. If you actually read the statute instead of the definitions you will the definition of paragraph (3) only applies under 765.401, which sets the order of priority for a proxy. In order of priority a "close personal friend" is (g), (a) is a court-appointed guardian (i.e., Mr. Schiavo) and (b) is a spouse (Mr. Schiavo again).

B. The statute is expressly designed to allow what happened here -- the withdrawal of medical treatment or nutrition. See 765.404.

- As for paragraph number 4, of course her situation became irreversible...after all, it's hard to reverse a condition like she had, once treatment and rehabilitation were denied to her by her "loving husband."

She had 8 years of attempted treatment and rehabilitation. Her doctors agreed long before Mr. Schiavo that her condition was irreversible.

And, again if you had read the statute, it states:

765.306 Determination of patient condition.--In determining whether the patient has a terminal condition, has an end-stage condition, or is in a persistent vegetative state or may recover capacity, or whether a medical condition or limitation referred to in an advance directive exists, the patient's attending or treating physician and at least one other consulting physician must separately examine the patient.

It only took Mrs. Schiavo's attending physician and one other physician to agree for paragraph (4) to be met.

Here there were copious physicians that agreed with the attending physician.

- Paragraphs 5 and 9 are good ones...how did Terri make an informed consent on a health care decision? All we have is Michael's worthless word telling us she told him she would have wanted to die. Sorry, Michael, as they say in Florida, that dog don't hunt.

A. There were several witnesses that testified under oath as to Mrs. Schiavo's wishes. They included her best friend, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and uncle.

B. Try reading the statute and you'd discover the informed consent definitions apply to an individual signing a living will or to the proxy acting on an incapacitated individual's behalf. See 765.01 & 765.404 (particularly 765.01(3).

- Paragraph 12(a), requires the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior. The video tapes of Terri with her family, clearly show a woman who, while disabled, clearly recognized her family (cognitive behavior) and smiled at them (voluntary action.)

A. See my answer re paragraph (4) -- the statute was more than complied with.

B. So, in your expert opinion after reviewing a few clips of video, all the eminent expert physicians have been wrong in their diagnoses. :rolleyes:

C. You do realize that, until the last year, the Schindlers admitted Mrs. Schiavo was in a permanent vegetative state? They only changed tune when all other legal angles had failed (as did their new angles).

D. You do realize that twitching, eye movement, etc. are consistent with a persistent vegetative state. It is well documented that the video clips are carefully selected instances when they many, many, many attempts to elicit a response coincided with autonomic twitch.

-Finally, number 17...let's just say, without any treatment other than feeding, (and everyone has to be fed, right?) Terri Schindler survived 15 years. Seems to me like she was NOT terminal, unless you count the last 14 days.

A. Again, try reading the statute and connecting this definition to a relevant provision. :rolleyes:

B. Your grasp of the facts and medical science is astonishing ... ly poor.

I will not dignify your insult by responding. However, I (and millions more) had a very reasonable request: that Michael Schiavo do the honorable thing, and walk away from the situation, leaving Terri to her parents' care. What is so unreasonable about that?

The honorable thing was to see to it his wife's wishes were followed. :headbang:

He has been threatened. He has been villified. He has been offered enormous bribes. He has remained steadfast.

He has more honor than you will ever be capable of.

And the parents testified they would keep Mrs. Schiavo alive (a) even if they knew it was against her wishes, (b) even if she were in tremendous pain, and (c) even if she required multiple invasive procedures and machines.

This has got to be the most overused line by the worshippers of death. "Her wishes" were only so, because her "husband" said they were so. All of Terri's CLOSE family, who knew her a lot longer than Michael ever did, and who knew the character of her beliefs, agree that, as a devout Catholic, Terri would have never asked to be euthanized.

A. Again, several witnesses testified, under oath, as to her wishes. Her other family could not testify that she had ever expressed a wish to the contrary. Instead, the offered only their opinion as to what they thought her wishes would be. The clear and convincing evidence -- as found by more than one court -- was that Mrs. Schiavo wishes were to refuse forcible medical treatment.

B. She was not a practicing Catholic. She had not been for many years prior to 1990.

C. Mrs. Schiavo was not euthanized. Nutrition was withheld -- which is consistent with the guidelines on end of life care developed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

But let's say, for the sake of argument that Terri, indeed, would have wanted to die in that situation. Why did Michael wait until right after he collected on the malpractice settlement? Why, if she really wouldn't have wanted to live in such a state, why didn't Michael allow her to die in 1990?

A. If Mr. Schiavo had immediately sought his wife's death--instead of seeking treatment for her for 8 years--you'd be less suspicious? :rolleyes: Try to keep your lies and innuendo straight.

B. The malpractice settlement was in 1993. Mr. Schiavo filed the action seeking permission to let his wife die in 1998. In what warped universe is 5 years equal to "right after"? :headbang:

Moreover, what happened to the money from the settlement? $700k of that settlement was slated for her medical expenses...medical expenses that were suspended almost immediately after he received the money. In fact, Michael Schiavo has paid George Felos handsomely throughout the case...where did the money come from? Why wasn't the money spent on her rehabilitation? Why did he suddenly remember her "wishes"...shortly after receiving the settlement?

The settlement funds are in a trust. Mr. Schiavo is not the trustee. He does not control the funds. And any expenditures are approved by the Court.

And again, there was 5 years between the settlement and when Mr. Schiavo sought permission to let his wife die.

Of course some of the money has gone to pay for legal fees to see that Mrs. Schiavo's wishes are carried out.

Those are the questions the media (and folks like you,) haven't asked, and don't seem to want an answer for, because the answer makes you uncomfortable. Your not-so-silent acquiescence in the murder of a defenseless woman is a slap in the face to the Founding Fathers of the United States, who wrote in the Declaration of Independence (http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/independ/declar.html):

in killing Terri Schindler, the Government, acting on behalf of her "husband," denied her of the very first unalienable right she was endowed with, and did so with a cheering section.

First, even the Schindlers refer to their daughter as Terri Schiavo. Show a little respect for the one you claim to be protecting.

Second, it is Mrs. Schindler's liberty that has been protected her. She had a right to refuse medical treatment and forcible feeding. She had a right not to be forcibly kept alive against her wishes. It is that right -- a basic liberty -- that you so casually toss aside.

Now, will you finally show some decency? Will you finally feel some shame?

Cat-Tribe, that was an incredible refutation - however, you are fated to lose because while you have "facts" on your side - your opponent has "FACTS". By capitalizing the word facts, he has proven undeniably that his "FACTS" are bigger and more virile than your facts. His "FACTS" are juiced up on steroids and pumped full of TRUTH. Your only reasonable response is to start increasing your font size.... or use bold. Good luck.

For some reason, I found this absolutely fuckin' hysterical.
right, that's because it's fuckin funny.

cat-tribe, the only thing i have to add to that incredable piece of work is this (directed at panhandlia)


ZING!

Pan,

For some reason you choose NOT to copy this from the Florida 765.101 definitions you posted:


(8) "Incapacity" or "incompetent" means the patient is physically or mentally unable to communicate a willful and knowing health care decision. For the purposes of making an anatomical gift, the term also includes a patient who is deceased.

Ken

PS:

765.204 Capacity of principal; procedure.--

(1) A principal is presumed to be capable of making health care decisions for herself or himself unless she or he is determined to be incapacitated. Incapacity may not be inferred from the person's voluntary or involuntary hospitalization for mental illness or from her or his mental retardation.

(2) If a principal's capacity to make health care decisions for herself or himself or provide informed consent is in question, the attending physician shall evaluate the principal's capacity and, if the physician concludes that the principal lacks capacity, enter that evaluation in the principal's medical record. If the attending physician has a question as to whether the principal lacks capacity, another physician shall also evaluate the principal's capacity, and if the second physician agrees that the principal lacks the capacity to make health care decisions or provide informed consent, the health care facility shall enter both physician's evaluations in the principal's medical record. If the principal has designated a health care surrogate or has delegated authority to make health care decisions to an attorney in fact under a durable power of attorney, the facility shall notify such surrogate or attorney in fact in writing that her or his authority under the instrument has commenced, as provided in chapter 709 or s. 765.203.

(3) The surrogate's authority shall commence upon a determination under subsection (2) that the principal lacks capacity, and such authority shall remain in effect until a determination that the principal has regained such capacity. Upon commencement of the surrogate's authority, a surrogate who is not the principal's spouse shall notify the principal's spouse or adult children of the principal's designation of the surrogate. In the event the attending physician determines that the principal has regained capacity, the authority of the surrogate shall cease, but shall recommence if the principal subsequently loses capacity as determined pursuant to this section.

(4) A determination made pursuant to this section that a principal lacks capacity to make health care decisions shall not be construed as a finding that a principal lacks capacity for any other purpose.

(5) In the event the surrogate is required to consent to withholding or withdrawing life-prolonging procedures, the provisions of part III shall apply.

History.--s. 3, ch. 92-199; s. 1146, ch. 97-102; s. 22, ch. 99-331; s. 10, ch. 2000-295.

ABSENCE OF ADVANCE DIRECTIVE

765.401 The proxy.

765.404 Persistent vegetative state.

765.401 The proxy.--

(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:

(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;

(b) The patient's spouse;

(c) An adult child of the patient, or if the patient has more than one adult child, a majority of the adult children who are reasonably available for consultation;

(d) A parent of the patient;

(e) The adult sibling of the patient or, if the patient has more than one sibling, a majority of the adult siblings who are reasonably available for consultation;

(f) An adult relative of the patient who has exhibited special care and concern for the patient and who has maintained regular contact with the patient and who is familiar with the patient's activities, health, and religious or moral beliefs; or

(g) A close friend of the patient.

(h) A clinical social worker licensed pursuant to chapter 491, or who is a graduate of a court-approved guardianship program. Such a proxy must be selected by the provider's bioethics committee and must not be employed by the provider. If the provider does not have a bioethics committee, then such a proxy may be chosen through an arrangement with the bioethics committee of another provider. The proxy will be notified that, upon request, the provider shall make available a second physician, not involved in the patient's care to assist the proxy in evaluating treatment. Decisions to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures will be reviewed by the facility's bioethics committee. Documentation of efforts to locate proxies from prior classes must be recorded in the patient record.

(2) Any health care decision made under this part must be based on the proxy's informed consent and on the decision the proxy reasonably believes the patient would have made under the circumstances. If there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, the proxy may consider the patient's best interest in deciding that proposed treatments are to be withheld or that treatments currently in effect are to be withdrawn.

(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed to preempt the designation of persons who may consent to the medical care or treatment of minors established pursuant to s. 743.0645.

History.--s. 5, ch. 92-199; s. 12, ch. 94-183; s. 32, ch. 99-331; s. 15, ch. 2000-295; s. 7, ch. 2001-250; s. 136, ch. 2001-277; s. 13, ch. 2002-195; s. 5, ch. 2003-57.