NationStates Jolt Archive

This article talks about what I have been trying to get across in all the "Terri Schiavo" threads: the case was important for the discussion of this sort of issue in the national conscience and law.


Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01legacy.html?th&emc=th)
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: April 1, 2005


ASHINGTON, March 31 - The life and death of Terri Schiavo - intensely public, highly polarizing and played out around the clock on the Internet and television- has become a touchstone in American culture. Rarely have the forces of politics, religion and medicine collided so spectacularly, and with such potential for lasting effect.

Ms. Schiavo, the profoundly incapacitated woman whose family split over whether she would have preferred to live or die, forced Americans into a national conversation about the end of life. Her case raised questions about the role of government in private family decisions.

But her legacy may be that she brought an intense dimension - the issue of death and dying - to the battle over what President Bush calls "the culture of life."

Nearly 30 years after the parents of another brain-damaged woman, Karen Ann Quinlan, injected the phrase "right to die" into the lexicon as they fought to unplug her respirator, Ms. Schiavo's case swung the pendulum in the other direction, pushing the debate toward what Wesley J. Smith, an author of books on bioethics, calls " the right to live."

"This is the counterrevolution," said Mr. Smith, who has been challenging what he calls the liberal assumptions of most bioethicists. "I have been frustrated at how difficult it is to bring the starkness of these issues into a bright public discussion. Schiavo did it."

Experts say that unlike the Quinlan case, which established the concept that families can prevail over the state in end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case created no major legal precedents. But it could well lead to new laws. Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions.

That troubles some medical ethicists and doctors.

"I am concerned about the erosion of a very hard-won multiple-decade process of agreeing that these decisions belong inside families," said Dr. Diane E. Meier, an expert in end-of-life care at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "We've always said that autonomy and self-determination does not trump the infinite value of an individual life, that people have the right to control what is done to their own body. I think that is at risk."

For social conservatives who argue that sanctity of life trumps quality of life, Ms. Schiavo came along at the right place and time, at a moment of their ascendancy in American politics. The election last November kept Mr. Bush in the White House and gave Republicans firmer control of Congress, particularly in the Senate, where conservatives gained several seats.

Among those conservative freshmen is Senator Mel Martinez, Republican of Florida, who prodded Congress to pass a bill allowing a federal court to review the Schiavo case. The move prompted a backlash, with polls showing an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to it, though there is no way to assess whether that sentiment will have lasting political effects.

"I am amazed by the attention and the passions that have been aroused by this," Mr. Martinez said. "It may be one of those issues that touches families, that transcends the cultural wars."

Others say that far from transcending the cultural wars, Ms. Schiavo's case landed smack in the middle of them.

"It may be that her legacy is to set off an ongoing debate in American public policy about the sanctity of life and how we are going as a society to make decisions about when life begins, when it ends and what protections it ought to have," said Gary L. Bauer, president of American Values, a conservative group.

That language percolates through other debates that involve clashes of medicine, politics and religion like the fights over abortion and embryonic stem cell research.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Christian conservative group, drew the connection in an e-mail message to backers who mourned Ms. Schiavo.

"We often hear about the culture of life that we are trying to protect," Mr. Perkins wrote, "yet rarely do we talk about the culture of death."

That's what legislatures do. They write laws. They repeal old laws. They pass amendments.

Most of the time, they break wind through their mouths and spend money.

But sometimes, they write laws.

This article talks about what I have been trying to get across in all the "Terri Schiavo" threads: the case was important for the discussion of this sort of issue in the national conscience and law.


Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/01/politics/01legacy.html?th&emc=th)
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: April 1, 2005


ASHINGTON, March 31 - The life and death of Terri Schiavo - intensely public, highly polarizing and played out around the clock on the Internet and television- has become a touchstone in American culture. Rarely have the forces of politics, religion and medicine collided so spectacularly, and with such potential for lasting effect.****

"We often hear about the culture of life that we are trying to protect," Mr. Perkins wrote, "yet rarely do we talk about the culture of death."

I have tried to point out that the Schiavo case has shaken the bedrock of acceptance of the right to die issue. It has previously been viewed as a sterile, painless, effortless process. Now it is at the forefront as people have come to realize that it is often a long, drawn out, horrendous affair. The Schiavo/Schindler controversy has also made people aware that the person making life and death decisions for you may have developed other priorities and interests that surplant your best interest. This is not proven to be the point in the Schiavo marriage, but it is easy to see how it could happen under certain circumstances.

I find it hard to understand why some people fail to acknowledge that this questioning is going on and may well end up with a different face on the right to die/live issues.

There is no doubt in my mind that some new laws are on the way due to the Schiavo case. The question is, of course, what kind of laws? Governor Bush's "Terri's Law" was deemed unconstitutional, so I somehow doubt that things will go in that direction. Than again, it certainly wouldn't be the first time that Congress has acted against popular opinion...

Well I did force myself to read the article.

Quoating the President is not a wise way to go about this. Just remember when he phrases "Culture of Life" and "Err on the side of life" He means as long as you can pay for it.

His law in Texas ended the life of a baby because the mother was poor and could not in 10 days find somebody to take on her son.

Also, when ever I see "Family Research Council" the writing looses credability.

Quality of life is an important factor. A person should live a life. Be it hard from ones social postion and or physical limitations from illness or injury.

A person should not be forced to exist as in the case of Mrs. Schiavo.

However, as to the orginal post. Yes this will cause changes. The President and his brother are going to work for "special" powers so they can act when evil legislate from the bench Judges don't Err on the side of morality.

perhaps they will create a law that will force all people to create a living will.

Other than that what can they change? Would it be possible to stop families from goign to court over such matters? Should they stop judges from interpreting the law on matters like this and leave it up to the church to decide what is right and wrong?

perhaps they will create a law that will force all people to create a living will.

Other than that what can they change? Would it be possible to stop families from goign to court over such matters? Should they stop judges from interpreting the law on matters like this and leave it up to the church to decide what is right and wrong?

I saw a blip that reported many people are looking into living wills.

Of course the Church should decide such things. Don't you know God punished the US on 9/11 because the homosexuals, Feminists, and liberals!

I saw a blip that reported many people are looking into living wills.

Of course the Church should decide such things. Don't you know God punished the US on 9/11 because the homosexuals, Feminists, and liberals!


my gf and I are also looking into living wills. She works at a law office so we should have ours done soon.

I am so gunna have my plug pulled the moment there is question wherether I might recover. I don't want my gf to have million dollar hospital bills and stall her life just so my heart can keep beating for a few more years

my gf and I are also looking into living wills. She works at a law office so we should have ours done soon.

I am so gunna have my plug pulled the moment there is question wherether I might recover. I don't want my gf to have million dollar hospital bills and stall her life just so my heart can keep beating for a few more years

My wife and I are the same way. We don't need living wills because in my wifes case, her family die ugly. No simple bam you are gone. It's Parkinsons, Lou Gehrings :eek:, cancer....

So her family is in the pull the plug camp.

My mom is in the medical profession so she is the same way.

If there is a "decent" chance they will recover, then what they heck keep them alive.

If they are going to be in a PVS?, let them go.

perhaps they will create a law that will force all people to create a living will.

Other than that what can they change? Would it be possible to stop families from goign to court over such matters? Should they stop judges from interpreting the law on matters like this and leave it up to the church to decide what is right and wrong?

Actually, it's pretty obvious that they think *they* should be the ones to decide. If it makes other people happy, it is fine to trample all over the rights of the individual.

Plus, I still think the whole reason for this mess is that the neo-cons want to NERF marriage so that "teh gays" won't want it anymore.

This article talks about what I have been trying to get across in all the "Terri Schiavo" threads: the case was important for the discussion of this sort of issue in the national conscience and law.

*snip*


Actually the article says pretty much the opposite of what you've been saying. You've claimed more than once that the Schiavo case was a dangerous "precedent." You've claimed it was a slippery slope.

I've stated several times that the court cases themselves created no legal precedent and that the whole matter was exceptional only in the hysterical publicity and the intervention of the federal and state legislative and executive branches.

The article says:

Experts say that unlike the Quinlan case, which established the concept that families can prevail over the state in end-of-life decisions, the Schiavo case created no major legal precedents. But it could well lead to new laws. Already, some states are considering more restrictive end-of-life measures like preventing the withdrawal of a feeding tube without explicit written directions.

That troubles some medical ethicists and doctors.

"I am concerned about the erosion of a very hard-won multiple-decade process of agreeing that these decisions belong inside families," said Dr. Diane E. Meier, an expert in end-of-life care at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York. "We've always said that autonomy and self-determination does not trump the infinite value of an individual life, that people have the right to control what is done to their own body. I think that is at risk."

The case creates no major legal precedents. No slippery slope. Nothing.

Right-to-life activists may try to use this case to restrict the right to control one's own body. That is wrong in many ways.

Actually the article says pretty much the opposite of what you've been saying. You've claimed more than once that the Schiavo case was a dangerous "precedent." You've claimed it was a slippery slope.

I've stated several times that the court cases themselves created no legal precedent and that the whole matter was exceptional only in the hysterical publicity and the intervention of the federal and state legislative and executive branches.

The case creates no major legal precedents. No slippery slope. Nothing.

Exactly. This is why I find the term "judicial activist" funny. When judges set precedent that a neo-con doesn't like, it is judicial activism. When judges follow the law to the tee, and don't change anything at all, but the neo-con wanted them to change something, it is also "judicial activism."

These people really need to make up their minds. Do they want judges to interpret the law, or not?

Last I remembered,

Legislatures pass laws
Judges interpret laws

If you want PVS patients to be kept alive indefinitely, you only have to pass a law that passes Constitutional muster.

Exactly. This is why I find the term "judicial activist" funny. When judges set precedent that a neo-con doesn't like, it is judicial activism. When judges follow the law to the tee, and don't change anything at all, but the neo-con wanted them to change something, it is also "judicial activism."

These people really need to make up their minds. Do they want judges to interpret the law, or not?

Dormant Commerce Clause.

Both sides complain about exactly the same thing, in exactly the same way.

Last I remembered,

Legislatures pass laws
Judges interpret laws

If you want PVS patients to be kept alive indefinitely, you only have to pass a law that passes Constitutional muster.

Any such law would be a violation of civil rights.

That's like saying, if you want people to only marry within their race, you only have to pass a law that passes Constitutional muster.

Any such law would be a violation of civil rights.

That's like saying, if you want people to only marry within their race, you only have to pass a law that passes Constitutional muster.

I bet a law could be crafted that forbids starving a patient to death if they are unable to feed themselves.

Additionally, if you made it a Constitutional amendment (however unlikely), it would be Constitutional.

I bet a law could be crafted that forbids starving a patient to death if they are unable to feed themselves.

The right to refuse medical treatment is a civil right. If you would prefer that the government decide your course of treatment for you, I'm sure there are other countries you can move to.

Additionally, if you made it a Constitutional amendment (however unlikely), it would be Constitutional.

...which would be a different situation from "passing Constitutional muster."

I bet a law could be crafted that forbids starving a patient to death if they are unable to feed themselves.

Additionally, if you made it a Constitutional amendment (however unlikely), it would be Constitutional.
It would be unconstitutional, especially if a person has expressed a wish to die (the withholding of medical care, when exercised by a guardian acting on the wish of the patient or by the patient itself is a right).


The amendment...could cause something like the hassle over income taxes before the amendment was passed. Creative benchwork, if you will.

The right to refuse medical treatment is a civil right. If you would prefer that the government decide your course of treatment for you, I'm sure there are other countries you can move to.

...which would be a different situation from "passing Constitutional muster."

You will note carefully that I'm not saying what I'd prefer. I'd prefer to leave such things up to patient and family.

I'm just saying that it is possible to make it impossible to have a repeat of the Terri Schiavo case, by passing a Constitutional amendment. You could enshrine the right to die in explicit terms, or you could forbid the intentional withdrawal of medical aid. Either way, it's possible.

His law in Texas ended the life of a baby because the mother was poor and could not in 10 days find somebody to take on her son.

As much as I hate to defend Bush on any count, I think you may be misinterpreting things here. First of all, the life of the infant was not ended because the mother was poor, but because *no one* was going to continue to prolong the suffering of a child in such a hopeless case. It had nothing to do with whether or not she could pay - she had to find a hospital willing to treat the child, even though there was no hope at all, and she could not.

Meanwhile, the mother was certifiably insane, stating that she did not believe in death or sickness, that her child was immortal, and that she could communicate with her child through telepathy.

The real legacy is that Congress and the President were smacked down for trying to interfere with the Courts and States Rights, and Judge Birch made sure that became part of our nation's legal precedent.

Everything else is consequential for me.

I do not want any self appointed body, governmental or otherwise, deciding what is ethical to me. My personal and religious beliefs on the "ethical" and "moral" thing to do with my body or my family may be vastly different than the main stream. It seems to me that Doctors need to return to their Hippocratic oath, which begins "First, do no harm" and if we need to have a national moral standard, Let's try the golden rule, which is almost universally acceptable, "Treat others the way you would have them treat you".

I think it is patently unethical to bring into the world a child that would be hated by the parent that birthed (him,her) I think it is immoral to keep a soul trapped in a body that it cannot access through a living brain, or, conversely, keep a body alive that the soul has long since left. Oooo, that sounds like a theme for a horror movie.

Agelena

I do not want any self appointed body, governmental or otherwise, deciding what is ethical to me. My personal and religious beliefs on the "ethical" and "moral" thing to do with my body or my family may be vastly different than the main stream. It seems to me that Doctors need to return to their Hippocratic oath, which begins "First, do no harm" and if we need to have a national moral standard, Let's try the golden rule, which is almost universally acceptable, "Treat others the way you would have them treat you".

I think it is patently unethical to bring into the world a child that would be hated by the parent that birthed (him,her) I think it is immoral to keep a soul trapped in a body that it cannot access through a living brain, or, conversely, keep a body alive that the soul has long since left. Oooo, that sounds like a theme for a horror movie.

Agelena

And yet, when the Hippocratic Oath says "First, do no harm" it means that the doctors assume that much more responsibility when determining someone's prognosis. And doctors are human too... they do make mistakes. Maybe if people couldn't SUE them so much they would make more principled decisions!

And yet, when the Hippocratic Oath says "First, do no harm" it means that the doctors assume that much more responsibility when determining someone's prognosis. And doctors are human too... they do make mistakes. Maybe if people couldn't SUE them so much they would make more principled decisions!

Have you even read the Oath? "Do no harm" is not in it. That is one of the first things they teach you in Med school.

The Oath is dated and they stopped using it about 20 years ago(speaking for the US). They switched to the Oath of Geneva.

The oath itself is violated all the time.

For example, the oath requires you to perform the same level of care on everyone, be it a condemned mass murderer or the Pope himself. Yet, docters violate their oaths by refusing to see patients for reasons less altruistic, such as because they can't pay their exhorabarent fees.

As much as I hate to defend Bush on any count, I think you may be misinterpreting things here. First of all, the life of the infant was not ended because the mother was poor, but because *no one* was going to continue to prolong the suffering of a child in such a hopeless case. It had nothing to do with whether or not she could pay - she had to find a hospital willing to treat the child, even though there was no hope at all, and she could not.

Meanwhile, the mother was certifiably insane, stating that she did not believe in death or sickness, that her child was immortal, and that she could communicate with her child through telepathy.

Ahh. What little I could find did not go into detail. Even when commenting the news is rather fluffy in the details.

The real legacy is that Congress and the President were smacked down for trying to interfere with the Courts and States Rights, and Judge Birch made sure that became part of our nation's legal precedent.

Everything else is consequential for me.

anyone have any links to quotes from the judges or anything along those lines?

When I heared that the husband refused a million dollar from a conservative millionaire if he had let the women "live" and refused it, then I knew that he acted decently and in love for the person instead of the fammily that wanted make politics and money out of here.

My deepest respect for both men and wive. I am happy that a non rich American mad ethe choice for love and his wife instead of money.
The fact says enough.

Schiavo's Case May Reshape American Law

And yet, Mitch Hedberg - a far superior human being - won't do diddly with his death.

And yet, Mitch Hedberg - a far superior human being - won't do diddly with his death.

Silly man! You made an assumption.

The question I would ask is how many people here (and Americans in general) would say "Who?" at the mention of the name. ;)