 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back |
Previous on Jeremy Bosch Memorial HOF |
Next on Jeremy Bosch Memorial HOF |
TheRealOrange
(68.50.160.93) on 3/24/2005 - 5:10 p.m. says: ( 4 views
)
|
"I have agreed with almost all of your posts..."
|
|
...on this topic over the past couple days, and I think they have been extremely well thought and written. Question about this statement -- "that presumption was overcome by clear and convincing evidence that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no reasonable hope for recovery, and had expressed a desire that she not be kept alive in such a state." Does the "clear and convincing" standard apply to both aspects of the sentence -- persistent vegetative state with no reasonable hope for recovery and had expressed a desire that she not be kept alive in such a state? If so, I can accept the persistent vegetative state result based on the medical evidence, but how can one man's word be considered clear and convincing on her "expressed desire"? Was there more than his word on that issue? If not, how can a judge simply accept just his word to meet that standard? That is my one and only real issue here. I may have been able to accept his word at the lower "preponderance" standard, but even that would be REAL close. I just don't believe she ever expressed an opinion about a persistent vegetative state and required feeding. If the standard is different for proving that she expressed a desire that she not be kept alive in such a state, perhaps that is the fix. Have the legislature set the standard for that determination higher. That way a Living Will still works fine, but the presumption of life is harder to overcome, especially if the manner of dealing with the persistent vegetative state is to withhold feeding. To me, feeding is not an artificial manner of prolonging life like respirators, etc. are. Anyway, I appreciate all your posts on this topic, and I have been happy to sit back and just read them without joining in because they are very well done. Thanks. * * * * * The problem is that YOU believe that Terri should be kept alive, so you are uncomfortable with any determination to the contrary. While we argee that there should be a presumption for living, you don't seem to leave any room for overcoming that presumption. The legal issue is what is best for Terri Schiavo in this situation? Is it better for her to live on in her current physical condition, or better for her life to be mercifully ended? In order to answer this question, the State of Florida had to first determine the nature of her physical condition, and then determine if Terri herself had ever expressed a personal desire when on life support. The courts determined -- by clear and convincing evidence -- that she is in a persistent vegetatitve state with no reaonsable hope for improvement in her medical condition. The court next had to decide if Terri had ever expressed a personal preference in such a situtation and found -- again by clear and convincing evidence -- that on three seperate occaisions Terri stated she would not want to be kept alive on life support. I know that we cannot determine what Terri "would have wanted" if she could have full knowledge of her own situation, but the court has done its best with the information it had on hand to determine what would be best for Terri. So the commentary should go something like this: "Therefore, the courts have protected her desire to not be kept alive in a vegetative state by removing the tube feeding her so that she may expire from lack of water and nourishment." Side One says, "The matter has been adjudicated, decided, reviewed and upheld. Terri's Parentslost. She is euthanized" Side two says, "You got it wrong. You should have a presumption for living." Side one says, "We got it right, there WAS a presumption of life, but that presumption was overcome by clear and convincing evidence that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state with no reasonable hope for recovery, and had expressed a desire that she not be kept alive in such a state. An appellate court reviewed the evidence de novo (enve though they didn't have to) and agreed with that finding. Terri's parents have been unable to present any credible evidence contrary to those findings even though they have been given multiple opportunities. Terry's parents lost." Side two says, "You got it wrong. She lost." Side one says, "Terri didn't lose. Terri's expressed desire to not live on in a vegetative state will be carried out" Side two says, "She, by definition can't win if you starve her to death." Side one says, "Her rights were protected." Side two says, "All but one. It seems her right to live is being violated. It seems more like the husband's right to decide was the one protected." Side One says, "There is no evidence that Terri wanted to continue to live when she has no cerebral cortex and no chance of cognitive thought, and in fact there is clear and convincing evidence that she would NOT want to live under those circumstances. The court has decided to uphold her wishes and mercifully bring her life to an end. Were there any credible evidence supporting the parents, I personally would feel differenty (although I cannot speak for all the "Let her die" crowd). The simple fact is that all those people who claim to be supporting Terri Schiavo are actually supporting her parents, but are hoping that someone will rule contrary to Terri's expressed wishes.
|
|
