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

[Cindy C.]

Hi,

Anna wrote:

> 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'm, er, banging with them, Anna!  ;-)

Seriously, I was reading up on this just now in the NY Times, and some
people are saying some very interesting things.  Apparently, some view
this new law and Bush's action (Jeb Bush, not George) as a victory
against the courts.  The argument seems to be that the courts have too
much power.  A spokeswoman for (Republican) Alan Keyes said, "All
these so-called culture wars reflect this incredible disconnect
between an out-of-control, despotic, high-handed elite in the courts
and the two other branches, which still seem to have some
responsiveness and some accountability to the electorate."

I find myself scratching my head on this one.  The court didn't decide
whether to disconnect the feeding tube, as I understand it.  The court
decided which family member gets to decide.  I believe the court's
decision would have been the same had the extended family wanted the
feeding discontinued and the husband wanted the feeding to continue.


> 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.  

That's true.  Unless and until, that is, the legislature passes a law
that says the Living Will doesn't mean anything and the governor gets
to decide.  

::shiver::

Here, the only evidence of what the patient would have wanted was the
husband's testimony that this is what she told him.

>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 have one of those.  It's kind of scary, though, in a way.  Talk
about putting a heck of a lot of trust in one's husband!  ;-D


 
> 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.  

But it seems that there are so many stories of people who *do* come
back.  I think it would be really hard to give up hope, myself. 
Especially if the person seems not to be in any observable pain.


> Ugghh! The whole thing sends shivers down my spine.
> 
> God willing, she will be at peace soon.

I hope so too.

Iggy wrote:

>From a political standpoint, IMHO, Jed didn't do this because he
>cared about the woman's rights or her life... He did it to pave the
>way for votes to re-election (or election to a better office). If his
>personal views on saving lives was the issue, then he would have
>stepped in on a number of other situations a LOT earlier than he did.

Some say he did it because he is staunchly anti-euthanasia and a
devout Catholic.  Some say he did it to please his right-to-life
constituents.

Regardless of his motives, it does seem that a desperately ill person
is being used as a pawn by a politician.  I would think her husband's
religious and other beliefs would be more important than Jeb's.

Cindy -- who trusts the courts more than she trusts the politicians,
but who has decided to trust her husband most of all