Should a spouse have the right?

[Nightwing]

I think they should. Nobody knows me better than my wife. She knows if I am in this state she should not delay and unhook me and the same for her. I don't think most families know these intimate details like spouses' do. I think everone should have the right to die.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florida high court to hear right-to-die case
Schiavo challenges new law
Monday, August 30, 2004 Posted: 12:50 PM EDT (1650 GMT)


TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) -- An emotionally charged case pitting a husband against his brain-damaged wife's parents goes before the Florida Supreme Court on Tuesday for a ruling that may help decide if she lives or dies.

More than six years after a judge first ruled in his favor, Terri Schiavo's husband is asking Florida's highest court to strike down a hastily crafted law backed by Governor Jeb Bush that prevents removal of her feeding tube.

Terri Schiavo, 40, suffered a cardiac arrest in February 1990 and has since been kept alive by a feeding tube. She is in a persistent vegetative state.

Critics, including the parents, argue that hope remains for Schiavo, who in videos taken by relatives appears to show signs of consciousness. Medical experts have disagreed on whether this is the case.

As her legal guardian, husband Michael Schiavo in May 1998 filed a petition to end life support, a decision that pitted him against Bush, Terri's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler and right-to-life groups.

At trial, Michael Schiavo and other witnesses testified that Terri Schiavo told him prior to the heart attack that she did not want to be kept alive under such circumstances. But the lack of a living will complicated efforts to resolve the case.

Following more court hearings in which judges again upheld Michael Schiavo's right to make decisions for his incapacitated spouse, health care workers in October 2003 removed the tube.

Six days later, Florida lawmakers at Bush's behest passed a law that gave the governor authority to intervene in the case. Within hours of Bush's signature, doctors reinserted the tube.

In May, a Florida circuit court judge struck down the law, saying it violated Terri Schiavo's privacy rights and breached the constitutional separation of powers by allowing the governor to overturn a determination by the courts. (Full story)

"Mrs. Schiavo was forced from her hospice bed, was forcibly operated upon, and is now being force-fed through a tube against her will," Michael Schiavo's attorneys argue in papers filed to the state Supreme Court. "Stripped of her most intimate personal rights, Mrs. Schiavo is more akin to subjects of an absolute dictatorship than citizens of a democratic state."

"The central issue in this case is whether Terri Schiavo would choose, with full knowledge of the current circumstances, to refuse necessary food and fluids by tube," attorneys for the Schindlers wrote the high court.

The two sides will make oral arguments on Tuesday. The court will make no ruling and is under no deadline to render an opinion.

[LordKathen]

Oh no... [img]graemlins/hidesbehindsofa.gif[/img]

[Felix The Assassin]

This is why a WILL is so important. That one little packet of paper with just a few funny looking stamps, and some signatures can make the difference in anything. My In-Laws lost the entire farm when Grand-Pa passed, he said it will go to family, that's how it works, no will. It went to the family alright, the family with the biggest check book who bought it from the state auction!

[Nightwing]

People don't tend to think of a will when they are young and vibrant, but they should. This could have been avoided. I wonder how many of our board members have one. I don't.

[Felix The Assassin]

Take that thought and run with it Nightwing. Make and post a 'Poll'.
I as well as my spouse does. But then again we are military.

[Yorick]

I cannot honestly discuss this topic without referencing my faith and worldview. It is too difficult to conversationally circumvent the reasoning and logic that underpins my position so I will decline from answering.

[Mouse]

As a brief side bar to this discussion let me address Yorick’s point. I believe it’s concerning the recent discussion on how we handle religion and topics that touch on matters of faith here. The basic rule is that matters of faith can be referred to as an adjunct to the main topic. What is not permitted at present is a situation where religion becomes the main theme of the thread and leads to the unfortunate bickering that demeans both this forum and the participants.

Let me make a hypothetical response to the original post:-

I’m a Believer and my views on this are firmly rooted in my faith and I believe that the only agency that should be empowered to end the life of this unfortunate woman is my Maker. This may sound harsh, but I believe that these decisions are beyond what we, as imperfect beings have either the right or the moral ability to make. I have seen miracles myself and will pray for this woman in her situation. I would hope that should I ever be in a similar position, I will be called to join my Maker when I am ready, not when someone else decides it’s time.

Now, here are two further responses to the above. Which one do you think is acceptable, and moves the discussion on, and which is out of line.

Ok, that’s fair enough for you. You have your faith and I respect that. Just as I hope you can respect my position. It’s my firm belief that, in the absence of documentary evidence of the clearly expressed views of a patient ( DNR order, “living will” etc.) then evidence should be sought as to the views and position that the patient would have expressed should he or she still be in a position to make them. That means cutting through the agendas to those giving evidence and trying to discern the wishes of the patient. I don’t think it’s easy, and I don’t envy those who take on the burden of adjudicating in these situations. However I also think that it’s wrong to impose my beliefs on everyone. That’s why I believe that the wishes of each individual should be respected and be the primary factor in how they choose to approach their own mortality.

This is just typical of how one bunch of self-proclaimed zealots wants to impose it’s airy-fairy worldview on the rest of us. Well, I’ve got news for you. Where I come from, we don’t take kindly to anyone telling us what we can or can’t do and if that doesn’t fit with how you want to live your life, or arrange your death, then fine – there’s plenty of countries out there that I’m sure would be happy to add you to their ranks of brain dead nutjobs. Just don’t come in here spouting your mystical BS and think any of us are going to buy it for a second.

I know all the above has been exaggerated for effect, but please give it some thought. We are trying to tread a fine line here between encouraging as wide an exchange of views as possible and the general health and conduct in this area of IW. It’s been determined that “no holds barred” religious discussions are not allowed at the moment. Work with us and that might change, but for the moment, please try and understand and adhere to the rules as they stand.

[Nightwing]

Well put Mouse.

[Timber Loftis]

Just so we keep things accurate, the document needed here would be a Durable Power of Attorney as well as a Living Will. A standard will determines who gets what once you die. All 3 combine to give you the security you need.

And, I sadly admit I have none of them at present. Well, as soon as I own something worth fighting over, I'll get right on it.

[Yorick]

You are a good man Mouse.