Can . . . Can The Governor *Do* That?

[dradamsapple]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Cindy C." <cindysphynx at c...> 
wrote:
> Hey, all,
> 
> The most fascinating thing is going on in Florida, and I'm just
> mesmerized by it.  In short, the husband of a woman who has been in 
a
> persistent vegatative state for over a decade won a protacted court
> fight to disconnect her feeding tube over the objections of the
> woman's other relatives.  The feeding tubes were disconnected.  The
> Florida legislature immediately passed a law giving the governor of
> Florida emergency authority over the woman's care, and he ordered 
that
> the feeding tube be reconnected against the husband's wishes.  That 
is
> where matters now stand, I think.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2971-2003Oct22.html
> 
> Gee.  I've never heard of this happening before.  By what authority 
is
> the state allowed to *do* such a thing?  What happened to the 
privacy
> rights of the family involved, or does that sort of thing not 
matter?  
> 
> I had no idea that the state could pass a law concerning the medical
> care of one person like that.  But if they can, I also can't think 
of
> a good reason why governors all over the U.S. couldn't do exactly 
the
> same thing -- just intervene in gut-wrenching family decisions and
> decide the question.  Oh, dear.
> 
> So.  How do other countries handle these sorts of euthanasia-type
> questions?  In the U.S., I think (but am not sure) that the next of
> kin gets to decide unless there's a living will in which the patient
> has made his/her wishes known.
> 
> Cindy -- who has a lot of trouble understanding how the doctors can 
be
> so sure that this patient will never get better, but who figures it
> isn't her place to decide
> 
> *****************
> 
> http://www.clark04.com/


Cindy,

This is an interesting problem.  Here in medical mecca (Boston) all 
the medical ethicists are banging there heads against the wall, 
wondering how on earth this could happen.  

I don't know the specifics of this case, but if she had a 'Living 
Will', then I do believe that the court must uphold that.  Basically, 
a 'Living Will' allows a person to have their intentions for care 
known, in the case that they are incapacitated and/or unable to make 
their own decisions, like being disconnected from life support if one 
is 'brain dead'.  I think in this case, the woman may have verbally 
made her intentions known to her husband, who then acted upon her 
wishes, but her parents objected, saying that she was responding to 
them and they want to keep her alive. Then there's the whole 'Power 
of Attorney' and all, allowing one person to speak in anothers' 
behalf. 

I'm no lawyer, but I work in a hospital, and I'm very curious to see 
how this turns out.  It is amazing how families hold on to their 
loved ones when there really is no hope.  It's an awful place to be, 
hearing that this person will not recover.  Unfortunately, I've been 
there personally twice in the past two years with my dad and dad-in-
law. Fortunately, they were both sick enough that they just passed 
without us having to make such an awful decision. 

Ugghh! The whole thing sends shivers down my spine.

God willing, she will be at peace soon.


Anna . . .(who is currently at work, trying to save some lives, but 
taking a break to recoupe from the workload)