Governor Bush orders feeding tube reinserted into coma victim's body

[Sir Taliesin]

Azred you got that right! Chewie, I think you are correct about the money. I understand that there was only about $50,000 left in the account. I wonder if there is some life insurance out there or something. Maybe that's what Smith was talking about. Any way, I understand that the courts may take guardianship away from him and place it somewhere else.

Still the husband does currently live with another woman who has already had one child by him and is expecting another. Doesn't sound very good. That said though, this guy is in a lose lose situation. He would have been castigated had he left her, but having two children by another woman looks pretty bad too.

[ 10-22-2003, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

[Maelakin]

Azred is right on.

This case is also a good example of why every person who does not want to be hooked up to a machine needs to pay a visit to their lawyer and make sure they have the appropriate legal documents drawn up (Including a psychological evaluation to show you were in a healthy frame of mind).

It becomes much harder for any person to go against your wishes at that point, however, it isn't a guarantee as it seems everyone these days likes to put their hands in cookie jars belonging to others.

[Night Stalker]

Except that "Living Wills" are often ignored by health care professionals and "close" relatives.

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: That's how I feel about your liberal judges. 'Bout time a governor put the smack down on one. [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img]

In this sentiment you show ignorance of how our Republic* is supposed to work. I am glad I don't live in your state. This is a matter for the Courts ONLY. The executive has NO buisness butting it's nose in. And I don't care how many "conservitives" write or call Uncle Jeb asking for intervention. IT'S NOT HIS JOB!!!

*To those that think America is a Democracy, wake up and smell the paint thinner. America is a Representitive Republic that through propoganda has confuzzled the masses into thinking they live in a Democracy. While some states are more democratic leaning (CA), the national structure is a Republic.

[ 10-22-2003, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Night Stalker ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Except that "Living Wills" are often ignored by health care professionals and "close" relatives.

I have to disagree with you here, Night Stalker, unless you have actual cases to back up your claim.

I've worked in two different hospitals over the last 12 years. During that time, I have also had 4 major surgeries at 3 different facilities. The FIRST THING that is asked of ANY patient is "Do you have a Living Will?" It isn't mandatory that you have one, but if you don't, the Registration clerk will strongly recommend you fill one out. That's because the Living Will IS a legally binding document. If you have one already, or fill one out for the hospital to have on record, then the family can protest if they want, but the hospital has documented proof of YOUR wishes. And since the document was signed and delivered BEFORE you are hospitalized, their is no questioning of your "mental state or reasoning ability".

Believe me, I know this for a fact. Every single time I've been in the hospital, that was the FIRST thing I was asked. I didn't have to fill a new one out each time...all I had to do was give them the information to retrieve a copy of the Living Will (also called Advance Directive nowadays) from the hospital where I oringially filled it out.

Now, IF I were to go to a different hospital and didn't give them the information necessary to obtain a copy of my Living Will, then they do have an obligation to try every necessary means to save and/or prolong my life should my health suddenly nosedive. But if they have a copy of my Living Will designating that "No Heroic Measures" be taken to save my life, then they have the same obligation to honor my express wishes and - once they had tried their normal measures of resuscitation - they would have no choice but to stop what they were doing and stand idly by while nature took its course.

[Night Stalker]

Well Cerek, my own Grandmother had a living will, was on hospice care and recusitated twice. Each time both the hospital and nursing home were counseled. They finaly followed it the third time.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Night Stalker: Well Cerek, my own Grandmother had a living will, was on hospice care and recusitated twice. Each time both the hospital and nursing home were counseled. They finaly followed it the third time.

Ahhhh....well there is a difference between a Living Will and a "Do Not Resuscitate (DNR)" order. The Living Will simply states that no "heroic measures" should be taken to prolong or preserve a person's life. Essentially, this just means not placing the person on life-support for any length of time when there is little hope of immediate recovery. Attempts to resuscitate a patient are NOT considered "heroic" efforts...as such, you must have a separate order that specifically states that NO attempt should be made at resuscitation.

The "DNR" orders are typically only found on the Living Wills or charts of elderly patients. You don't have to have a Living Will to have a DNR order (although it is pretty well assumed that life support wouldn't be wanted if resuscitation is not wanted).

As for the hospice "ignoring" your grandmothers Living Will - unless it also contained the a specific "DNR Order", they are obligated to make every attempt necessary to save a life. As I said before, when the DNR order is in place, however, they have the same obligation to simply stand by and do nothing (an emotionally difficult task at best).

I'm sorry to hear your grandmother's wishes were not met the first two times, but it sounds as if the proper paperwork may not have been done the first two times. That is just a guess, of course, but keep in mind that health care facilities face a huge risk of lawsuit in their everyday business. That is why they are so meticulous about having proper documentation for ANY decision regarding a patient's care. It's a necessary measure of CYA in today's litigation-happy society.

[Night Stalker]

No, everything was properly formated .... just ignored.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Skunk: Given that the families are in dispute - I believe that this was a matter for the courts to decide: not for a politician.

Courts merely interpret the laws politicians make.

[Yorick]

I support the governors decision. Look at the dispute.

First up she's not in a coma as the title of this thread implies, unless you call a coma being awake and able to see and recognise faces.

I saw footage of her being carted around outside yesterday, and that's no coma Chewbacca.

Secondly, her husband wants her dead, her parents want her alive.

Simple. Grant him a divorce and take back the million dollars he got for her rehabillitation and give it to her parents. She is OF VALUE to the people who brought her into the world and cared for her as she grew. Why take her away from them.

Thirldy she is being fed. That is all. No life support, no respirator. Food. What of quadraplegics who cannot feed themselves? Are they all to die too? In hunter gatherer society, a blind person could not hunt ant thus feed themselves. Would they have been killed?

Fourthly, she has severe brain damage. She's in no pain, and probably doesn't understand what is going on. This is no reason to terminate her life though. If she has as little understanding as is suggested, she'd be happy. Ignorance is bliss.

Fifth, she may have once mentioned to her husband that she would have wanted to die, but then she mentioned to her parents that she wanted a divorce.

So who is right? Should she be granted both a divorce and death? Why is he still married to her if he's so intent on respecting casual words she says to people.

I smell money and protectionism on his part. If there was foul play and he did strangle her, as some have inferred, he certainly wouldn't want her recovering to convoict him and take his million dolloars now would he?

If in doubt, the person should live. You can't reverse a decision to kill someone.

There is a suprising amount of joy and love brain damaged people can experience.

[ 10-23-2003, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Skunk: Given that the families are in dispute - I believe that this was a matter for the courts to decide: not for a politician.

Courts merely interpret the laws politicians make. [/QUOTE]Do they? What about the whole notion of substantive due process. The notion that there are rights contained in the "shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" being interpreted to mean more than something procedural.

Substantive due process upheld the rights of a slave owner in Dredd Scott, and the right to contract (banning labor laws) that was later rescinded. Then it was used to uphold the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade. It's history first saw abuse by conservative judges, and then by liberal judges for the last 60 years. It is very much a valid point that this is judges inserting their morals in place of the legislature's.

So, in THEORY judges don't "make" law. But, in theory, judges are impartial and don't care which side wins. Pffft, riiiiight.

[ 10-23-2003, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]