The Right to Die? (long story and test questions for class assignment)

[Larry_OHF]

I have a homework assignment due Monday that counts as the final quiz in my Health class. It is based on the right to die subject. I would really appreciate it if I could read some of your comments on the matter, as that would help me prepare for this quiz.
For the record, I will give my word that I will reference your user name on this website if I use a quote that you make. I will not claim any work as my own. I do not intend to just copy what you guys say, I want to see what you have to say, and draw my own conclusions with your help. Thanks in advance!

First, the story...followed by the class assignment.



From here on, I will be copy/pasting the whole assignment.

HEA 201 Section One Discussion Forum Topic DUE DATE: May 4th, 2004 (6 PM)

Should the Husband’s Request be permitted?

In Florida Right-to-Die Case, Legislation Puts the Constitution at Issue
by Adam Liptak, The New York Times, 10/23/2003
In enacting a tightly focused, one-time-only law that effectively reversed a series of court decisions allowing a Florida man to withdraw life support from his brain-damaged wife, the Florida Legislature has created a constitutional crisis, legal scholars said yesterday.
"Courts get to decide particular cases, not legislatures," said Steven G. Gey, a law professor at Florida State University.
The law authorized Gov. Jeb Bush to issue "a one-time stay to prevent the withholding of nutrition and hydration from a patient" who meets four criteria. Those criteria are plainly meant to identify only the woman at the center of the constitutional showdown, Terri Schiavo.
Last week, a feeding tube that had sustained Mrs. Schiavo since 1990 was removed after her husband, Michael, won a series of court battles based on his contention that she once said she never wanted to be kept alive artificially.
But after the Legislature's action on Tuesday, Mr. Bush ordered the feeding resumed, and yesterday Mrs. Schiavo was receiving nourishment through a new feeding tube. Mr. Schiavo's lawyers were contemplating their next move.
One of them, George Felos, said yesterday that Mr. Schiavo would seek a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law.
Judge W. Douglas Baird of Circuit Court in Clearwater declined to rule immediately on an emergency request filed on Tuesday to strike down the law. The judge has set an expedited briefing schedule, requiring Mr. Schiavo to file a request for a permanent injunction within five days.
"We believe that a court sooner or later - we hope sooner - will find this law to be unconstitutional," Mr. Felos said on the NBC "Today" program.
That is likely, legal scholars said yesterday. Even if it does happen, however, the governor and his allies in the Legislature will have demonstrated their commitment to an issue of great concern to conservative voters in Florida.
From a legal standpoint, the main question is whether the Florida Legislature was authorized to undo a judicial decision.
In general, courts decide particular cases, and legislatures enact general laws. When either branch of the government strays from its role in the constitutional structure, its actions can violate the separation of powers doctrine.
The Supreme Court ruled in 1995 that Congress is prohibited from reopening final court decisions under that doctrine.
"The prohibition is violated when an individual final judgment is legislatively rescinded for even the very best of reasons," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, "such as the legislature's genuine conviction (supported by all the law professors in the land) that the judgment was wrong."
That decision interpreted the federal Constitution. The question in the Schiavo case is whether the Florida Constitution has a similar prohibition. Professor Gey said it does.
"If anything," he said, "Florida separation-of-powers law is even more rigid than federal law."
The hastily written legislation is hard to follow, and it will allow many sorts of arguments in the courts.
"It's beautifully badly drafted," said Patrick O. Gudridge, a law professor at the University of Miami. The word "stay," for instance, does not really capture what Mr. Bush was authorized to do. In legal parlance, a stay temporarily suspends a judicial decision. Here, the statute authorizes the governor to override a judicial decision.
"They wanted to use the word `stay,' " Professor Gudridge said of the Legislature, "because the analogy is to a stay of execution."
Professor Gey said the Legislature's haste was evident.
"It was done in a rush and probably without much input from the legal staff," he said. "If you put it before a law professor, they are going to find 16 things wrong with it. The Legislature will respond, `Yeah, but we got our way.' "
Among the other problems with the law, said Michael R. Masinter, a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Fort Lauderdale, are that it intrudes into what he called Mrs. Schiavo's constitutional right to privacy, that it gives enormous discretion to the governor in matters of life and death, and that it is so limited that it may run afoul of a provision of the Florida Constitution that limits so-called special laws.
Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said the central problem is that the law violates Mrs. Schiavo's rights. "Because the state is obviously not trying to determine what she wanted or would have wanted," Professor Tribe said, "but rather is deciding what should happen, it fundamentally violates her right to bodily integrity."
The Legislature's interference with the judiciary's role may be conceived of in even starker terms than is suggested by the rather bland term "separation of powers," Professor Gey said.
"The statute tells the governor that he does not have to enforce judicial decisions," he said. "That's sort of George Wallace territory."
In the 1950's and 1960's, Gov. George C. Wallace of Alabama and other Southern officials defied federal court orders concerning school desegregation and protest marches. The situation in Florida is not precisely analogous, because the element of state's rights is absent.
Lars Noah, a law professor at the University of Florida, suggested a thought experiment to clarify how far the Legislature's power should extend.
"What if the courts decide, as I'm fairly sure they will, that the statute is unconstitutional?" Professor Noah asked. "Could the Legislature then instruct the governor to ignore that judicial order?"
If the answer to the second question is no, he suggested, the law enacted Tuesday must be struck down. If the answer is yes, he went on, the conventional concept of how legislatures and courts divide their responsibilities is wrong.
Copied from:

http://www.dwd.org/fss/news/nyt.10.23.03.asp

SCHIAVO HAS BEEN the subject of a bitter dispute between her husband Michael Schiavo and her mother, father and siblings. Terri’s husband has consistently maintained that Terri would not want to remain kept alive by medical technology in the vegetative state she has been in for more than a decade.

However, Bob and Mary Schindler, Terri’s mother and father, say they don’t trust Michael and believe that Terri would want to continue living even though she is almost completely incapable of any thought, feeling or mental activity. They also don’t trust the doctors who say Terri has suffered permanent brain damage and will never think again. In short, her parents are hoping for a miracle that Michael believes will never come.

The battle over whether Terri’s husband can discontinue her artificial nutrition and hydration in an effort to let her die has been in the Florida courts for six years. Nineteen judges sitting on six different courts have heard evidence from both her husband, the Schindler family, and a parade of medical experts.

No court has ever been persuaded that Michael Schiavo should be disqualified from making medical decisions on behalf of his wife. And no court has ever been persuaded that Terri has any hope of recovering from her severely brain-damaged state.
So the courts have sided with Michael Schiavo using a well-established rule of law, which states that when a patient cannot communicate and has left no written instructions about their wishes, spouses have discretion about continuing or stopping medical care.

GOVERNOR STEPS IN
The Florida courts finally had heard enough. Six days ago, as Michael had asked, Terri’s feeding tube was removed at the Pinnelas Park hospice where she has been residing. That is when the Florida Legislature — urged on by Gov. Bush — got into the act.

The Legislature passed a new law that orders the continuation of nutrition and hydration even when a person is in a persistent vegetative state, has not left a living will or advance directive, and has had feeding tubes removed. The law requires the use of a feeding tube even if a spouse has requested its removal.

As a result, Terri Schiavo has stopped dying. She is back in a Florida hospital in a coma with her feeding tube reinserted per an order from the Governor.

Why is the state’s decision so awful? The Legislature tried to craft a law that would apply only to Terri’s situation, but has instead created a policy that will have far-reaching consequences for all the state’s citizens.

Sadly, most people do not have living wills or other documents that state in writing who should make decisions for them or what they would want if they should fall into a permanent coma or be unable to communicate. Under the new law, every person in Florida who does not have a living will is now in a situation where a spouse’s decision to remove artificial feeding can be challenged.

But there is nothing medically special about feeding tubes — and the legal challenges will not stop there. Parents or siblings will now have more legal authority to override the decision of a spouse to stop kidney dialysis, ventilators or any form of medical technology that can maintain physiological function in someone who is dying or unable to think.

SHARPEN YOUR PENCILS

By ignoring its own court system, by ignoring the independent medical experts who examined Terri and by ignoring the principle that says spouses — not parents or brothers or sisters or cousins or any other relatives — have decision-making authority, the Florida Legislature and the Governor have called into question the right to die of every single person in the state who does not have a living will or advanced directive.

The good news is that the U.S. Supreme Court looked at these issues a decade ago in the case of Missouri’s Nancy Cruzan and affirmed the right to stop medically supplied food and nutrition to patients in permanent comas. There is every reason to think that the newly enacted Florida law is unconstitutional and will be overturned.

Florida legislators knew they were on thin ice in trying to intervene in the death of Terri Schiavo. Florida Sen. Jim King, the president of the Florida Senate, said after the vote: “I keep on thinking ‘What if Terri didn’t really want this done at all?’”

Senator, it is hard to imagine that Terri, you or anyone else would want to spend 13 years in a comatose state in a nursing home bed. But, because the Governor and the Legislature were not willing to honor their own legal system, there is a grave risk that she may well spend another 13 years — or longer — in this condition.

And what is worse, because of this law every single resident of the state now faces the same risk unless they fill out a living will. So Floridians, sharpen your pencils lest the Legislature decides that you, too, cannot have the plug pulled.

Arthur Caplan, Ph.D., is director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia.

Copied from –

http://www.msnbc.com/news/983619.asp#BODY

If you want to read more and you are on the web click on this link



How Moral Is Choosing Death?

"The third night that I roomed with Jack in our tiny double room, in the solid-tumor ward of the cancer clinic of the National Institute of Health in Maryland, a terrible thought occurred to me. Jack had a melanoma in his belly, a malignant solid tumor that the doctors guessed was the size of a softball. The doctors planned to remove the tumor, but they knew Jack would soon die. The cancer had now spread out of control. Jack, about 28, was in constant pain, and his doctor
had prescribed an intravenous shot, a pain killer, and this would control the pain for perhaps two hours or a bit more. Then he would begin to moan, or whimper, very low, as though he didn't want to wake me. Then he would begin to howl, like a dog. When this happened, he would ring for a nurse, and ask for the pain-killer. The third night of his routine, a terrible thought occurred to me. 'If Jack were a dog, I thought, what would be done to him?' The answer was obvious:
the pound, and the chloroform. No human being with a spark of pity could let a living thing suffer so, to no good end." (James Rachel's The Morality of Euthanasia)

The experience of Stewart Alsop, a respected journalist, who died in 1975 of a rare form of cancer gave an example on the morality of euthanasia. Before he died, he wrote movingly of his experiences with another terminal patient. Although he had not thought much about euthanasia before, he came to approve of it after sharing a room with Jack. While growing up, each of us learns a large number of rules of conduct. Which rules we learn will depend on the kind of society we live in and the parents and the friends we have. We may learn to be honest, to be loyal, and to work hard. Sometimes we learn a rule without understanding its point. In most cases this may work out, for the rule may be designed to cover ordinary circumstances, but when faced with unusual situations, we may be in trouble. This situation is the same with moral rules. Without understanding the rules, we may come to think of it as a mark of virtue that we will not consider making exceptions to. We need a way of understanding the morality against killing. The point is not to preserve every living thing possible, but to protect the interests of individuals to have the
right of choice to die.

People who oppose euthanasia have argued constantly doctors have often been known to miscalculate or to make mistakes. Death is final and irreversible; in some cases doctors have wrongly made diagnostic errors during a check-up. Patients being told they have cancer or AIDS, by their doctors' mistake, have killed themselves to avoid the pain. Gay-Williams, The rongfulness of Euthanasia, stated:

"Contemporary medicine has high standards of excellence and a proven record of accomplishment, but it does not possess perfect and complete knowledge. A mistaken diagnosis is possible. We may believe that we are dying of a disease when, as a matter of fact, we may not be. . . ." (419)

Williams explains that patients who have been told by their doctors they have cancer never actually had it. But there have been so few cases reported that these remarks are often considered to be speculations. The individual should have been able to continue living until he felt the need to be confined to a bed. I cannot disagree with the fact that doctors do make mistakes, but they are more correct than they are wrong. Let's say that the patient chooses not to die but instead takes the medicines his doctor has prescribed for him. In doing so the patient is choosing for himself. He's making his own decisions; he could see other doctors to see if his illness had not been mistakenly presented. Is it not for the individual to decide whether she or he wants to live or die? John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, expresses his view on individual rights:

"In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign."

Those opposing euthanasia have also argued that practicing euthanasia prevents the development of new cures and rules out unpracticed methods in saving a life. Gay-Williams says:

"Also, there is always the possibility that an experimental procedure or a hitherto untried technique will pull us through. We should at least keep this option open, but euthanasia closes it off." "They might decide that the patient would simply be 'better off dead' and take the steps necessary to make that come about. This attitude would then carry over to their dealings with patients less seriously ill. The result would be an overall decline in quality of medical care."

Euthanasia does not have to prevent medical researchers from inventing new cures or trying new methods in saving a life. Having new cures that are successful will reduce the number of patients wanting to die. Recent news says medical researchers have now reported on new methods of treating and curing cancer patients. News such as this would let those who think they "are better off dead" have confidence and hope for a life to live.

The common argument in support of euthanasia is one that is called "The argument of mercy." Patients sometimes suffer pain that can hardly be comprehended by those who have not experienced it. The suffering would be so terrible that people wouldn't want to read or think about; and recoil in horror from its description. The argument for mercy simply states: Euthanasia is morally justified because it ends suffering. Terminally ill patients are people who will never attain a personal existence, never experience life as a net value, and/or never achieve a minimal level of independence. The moral issue regarding euthanasia is not affected by whether more could have been done for a patient; but whether euthanasia is allowable if it is the only alternative to torment. Euthanasia does not refer to Nazi-like elimination of the sick, old, or unproductive; traditionally euthanasia means the search for a good death, an easier death for one
who is dying, a death released in some measure from intractable suffering. If a person prefers and even begs for death as an alternative to linger on in torment, only to die, then surely it is not immoral to help this person die sooner. John M. Freeman, "To Treat or Not to Treat," expresses the dilemma as follows:

"If we elect not to listen to a person's wish on dying, what becomes of him? Is he to be fed and watered while the physician waits for him to develop Mennonites? Is he to be sedated and fed inadequately so that he dies slowly of starvation without making too much noise?"

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is one of the oldest and most common moral proverbs, which applies to everyone alike. When people try to decide whether certain actions are morally correct, they must ask whether they would be willing for everyone to follow that rule, in similar circumstances. The application of this to the question of euthanasia is fairly obvious. Each of us is going to die someday, although people don't know how or when, and we will
probably have little choice in the matter. But suppose you were given two choices: to die quietly and painlessly or hope to live and suffer? A chance to survive a disease so painful that you could only moan for those few days before death; with family members standing helplessly by. What would your ideal choice be? I know I would choose the quick and painless death. Why is euthanasia considered morally wrong by some people? The principle of self-determination
promotes the ideas of self-governance, freedom of choice, and personal responsibility for individual decisions and behaviors. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, says:

"But the strongest of all the arguments against the interference of the public with purely personal conduct is that, when it does interfere, the odds are that it interferes wrongly and in the wrong
place.."

Self determination protects privacy and the rights of a person to determine his or her own life or property without specifying what choice or action should be embraced.

What if Jack were your brother, your husband, or your son; would you let him suffer or die painlessly? The doctors planed to remove the tumor, but they knew eventually "nature will take its
course." Society does not have the right to tell an individual how to control his own life. If an individual chooses to die, then by all mean he has that right; the right is paramount. Euthanasia is morally correct, although this method of relieving pain has been the topic of great moral debates. May we be vested in the wisdom, patience, and courage to perceive the limitations of our particular moral visions and derived norm. Robert Louis Stevenson, Crabbed Age and Youth, says
)"Old and young, we are all on our last cruise." (Source: http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/62.htm)

================================================== =============================




Right to Die" Should we Have it?
Final Discussion Forum – Make sure you have read the article appended in the combined HEA 201 section under Course Documents and entitled – “right to Die?”

Part I:

The issue is should Americans be given the right to make choices about their own death given a particular set of circumstances (as in the Schiavo case or like with folks such as Jack and James – all of these people are discussed in the paper on “Right to Die” appended in the combined HEA 201 section – under Course Documents). All 3 of these circumstances could well have monumental implications for all citizens of our country – this forum is seeking cogent input into what is surely an emotional, controversial, and realistic issue in the USA. For sure – on a personal level – most of us will have similar quandaries to confront with parents, grandparents, spouses, etc.

Your task is two-fold as you seek to posit cogent, reference-based (minimum of 3 – not counting text or any that I have identified) response:

1. What is your position on the issue on ending one’s life given a particular set of circumstances (and these are to be EXPLICITLY described)? In explaining your position – you are to integrate in two or more of the five types of health, outside references, and your own views ((make clear on what your view is based). Such an important decision/position is to be based on logic – keeping in mind the law, family friends, etc.

Some food for thought as you ponder this heavy but very real issue --

Euthanasia—commonly called mercy killing—is a serious subject. The basic argument is that an individual owns his own life and should therefore have the right to dispose of it if he doesn't want it anymore. Or – if you support the issue it is kind of like believing that just as a man has the right to contract out any other legal and moral service, so he should have the right to contract out his own death.

Or – are there potentially serious consequences of legalizing any kind of death-causing avenue —especially for doctors. Their oath requires them to refrain from harming those they serve. That's a core prescription of modern medical culture. Should we be extremely wary of any movement that seeks to corrupt that core. It has served Western medicine well. It has produced grand advances to health and life-extension. Let us resist rushing in a direction that could erode that core.

Part II --

The second (make sure in Discussion Board you number the response so we know to what you are speaking) issue to which you must submit a response is – For this question – you need not include references – simply put – how would you answer the next question.

2. We have always had the ability to commit suicide or request euthanasia in times of serious illness. Yet these acts have been prohibited by the Christian tradition from early times. Some spiritually bound individuals, as they see relatives and friends kept alive too long and in poor condition through the use of current medical powers, however, are beginning to question that tradition. Are assisted suicide and euthanasia compassionate responses to those in pain and suffering who face death?

Part III:

Throughout the time period this forum is up – you are to fully respond to MINIMALLY one of your class peers – providing feedback to them (and us) on his/her views expressed. Please – be specific as to what you saying in response to his/her posting.



[ 04-30-2004, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[johnny]

The "right to die" is kind of a silly expression if you ask me, because the only thing that's certain in life IS the fact that sooner or later we all die. If one should have the right to end his/her life at a moment of their own choice ? Yes, of course. How can some judge decide you're not allowed to end your misery, or end your pain ?

[dplax]

My views on the subject:
-a certain limit should be drawn from which on euthanasia could be permitted (for example if the chance to get out of a coma is low)
-right to die should be permitted if the person choosing it is seriously ill (terminally possibly)(should not permit it for young people who want to do it just because of some love affair gone wrong)
-if the man/woman cannot decide for himself, then only close relatives should be allowed to do so, and if they disagree then it should not be done

Hope that helps. It is only my general view of the sbject, if you want specific answers to the questions just let me know and I shall give you my opinion on them.

[promethius9594]

its irrelevant in this case, actually. Terry Schiavo has no evidence that she wanted to die. She told her family something that is contrary to what the husband claims. millions of dollars are to go to her husband and his new girlfriend if she dies (although he claims that money is already gone, he can't provide any medical records or proof to that effect). He has a flipping new girlfriend while his WIFE is still alive for God's sake. if you want a new girlfriend, LEAVE you current wife to be cared for by her family who ultimately loves her more than he does.

Hes a money grabbing scumbag, the question of right to die doenst even apply to this question because the question should be, does your spouse have the right to kill you if you happen to be brain damaged and have a huge amount of monetary capitol which will go to your spouse, and THAT is IMORAL

[Timber Loftis]

Just interjecting a general statement here.

If you really own yourself, you have the right to die -- it's your choice. Of course, if you really own yourself, you also have the right to NOT wear a seatbelt, NOT wear a motorcycle helmet, etc. You even own the right to sell yourself into slavery or intentured servitude.

My take on the issue is that the law does not respect ownership of one's self, and that it should. My 2cents.

[promethius9594]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: If you really own yourself, you have the right to die -- it's your choice. Of course, if you really own yourself, you also have the right to NOT wear a seatbelt, NOT wear a motorcycle helmet, etc. You even own the right to sell yourself into slavery or intentured servitude. My take on the issue is that the law does not respect ownership of one's self, and that it should. My 2cents.

Heh, well, first off having the right to kill yourself isnt exactly equivalent to it being a moral action if you kill yourself. secular rights have little bearing on morality. besides, from a law standpoint, what are they going to do if you kill yourself? throw your body in jail? I dont think its moral to kill yourself, but rather is a sin against hope (catholic concept, ask if you dont understand).

i agree, however, that people shouldnt be forced by law to wear a helmet or seatbelt, but i also think that if they choose not to that they shouldnt be covered by tax dollar medical programs. i dont want to pay for a vegitable who only had half a brain prior to their accident because they were too stupid to put on a seatbelt. i know that sounds cruel, but i think that our government puts us in a place where we put the blame for everything on externals, when we should be learning how to be accountable and responsible.

[Faceman]

As cynical as it may sound, laws are not made for individuals, but for society as a whole.
Killing or hurting yourself does not only harm you and the ones close to you, but also loses society a viable asset.
That's (getting more cynical here) the primary reason why many people would be opposed to assisted suicide if performed on healthy person.
If the person is "lost" anyway we are far more inclined to allow him/her to "end it".

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by promethius9594: [QB] Heh, well, first off having the right to kill yourself isnt exactly equivalent to it being a moral action if you kill yourself.

Yes. But morals are tied to religion and beliefs, and I don't seek to set those for (almost) anyone.

secular rights have little bearing on morality.

Well, the legislatures tend to draw secular rights from moral notions, but overall you are right.

besides, from a law standpoint, what are they going to do if you kill yourself? throw your body in jail?

That's not the issue. While in the olden days they would drag the dead corpse through the town and hang it, that is not so anymore. The real issue these days is what kind of crime was committed by those who attempted suicide but failed.

I dont think its moral to kill yourself, but rather is a sin against hope (catholic concept, ask if you dont understand).

I do understand. I think I may agree. However, I see it as more of a cowardice -- a bit different than the Catholic concept, I believe.

i agree, however, that people shouldnt be forced by law to wear a helmet or seatbelt, but i also think that if they choose not to that they shouldnt be covered by tax dollar medical programs. i dont want to pay for a vegitable who only had half a brain prior to their accident because they were too stupid to put on a seatbelt. i know that sounds cruel, but i think that our government puts us in a place where we put the blame for everything on externals, when we should be learning how to be accountable and responsible.

I think we agree here. As with suicide, if you own yourself, then you own yourself. that includes the right to not wear a seatbelt, etc. However, insurers should be free to require a higher premium or refuse to cover you in those cases, and society should not be left footing the bill. If you choose to wear no seatbelt, fine -- so long as society does not bear the cost of your decision.

[Faceman]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: I think we agree here. As with suicide, if you own yourself, then you own yourself. that includes the right to not wear a seatbelt, etc. However, insurers should be free to require a higher premium or refuse to cover you in those cases, and society should not be left footing the bill. If you choose to wear no seatbelt, fine -- so long as society does not bear the cost of your decision.

But society DOES bear the cost of your decision anyway, because they lose YOU.

[ 05-03-2004, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Faceman: But society DOES bear the cost of your decision anyway, because they lose YOU.

While Plato may agree with you (because each new soul may be the one that saves us all), I don't. I can make you "lose" me in any number of ways (leaving, simply not talking, etc.). It's not a compensable harm for society. Bzzzt. Try again.