Just in case anyone is interested, there is a excellent timeline with links to official documentation which is maintined by the University of Miami. It contains all kinds of nifty stuff including a vast number of the actual court documents. Motions, amicus briefs, rulings, etc. Any lawyer dopers who are looking for primary source materials, here you go. Any non-lawyers, give this a look-over. It is pretty approachable and it helps get your head around the HUGE(15 year) back story of this case.
Nope, it’s going to be the catalyst for the end of America as we know it. The loon division of the Repub party won’t be getting the boot, they’ll take over to insure they get their way each and every time. Mark my words, this isn’t about people stepping back to reflect on the current direction of the country, this will be about about stacking as many judges in their favor as possible. This horrific incident has served only as an illumination to the loons that they must replace judges.
74% think the Republicans are only involved for political reasons, because they’re pandering to the religious wing of the party. Only 1 in 4 americans think Terri’s feeding tube should be re-inserted.
People are watching this story, talking about it, and overwhelmingly everyone is deciding that they would not want to be alive in Terri’s situation, that Michael is right to let his wife die, and that they would pull the plug if they were Michael.
If the Dems had any balls, they’d jump on this issue and say that it is obvious Terri’s rights and wishes have been respected, and she should be allowed to die-- and that in order to prevent similar situations in the future, the Dems will put up examples of what a living will should include on their website, or you can call your local Dem office and someone will mail you a pamphlet indicating what you need to do to make sure your wishes are respected should you end up in a similar situation.
You made an issue out of my comment, not me. The only problem with my “behavior” is that I am the only person here who has the balls to point out the inherent flaws in the magical thinking that religion causes. And if you think I’m mean to the poor li’l theists, read George Carlin or James Randi–they’ll make your head spin. By comparison I’m sweeter than a stolen kiss.
Barbarian, it’s also possible that they are actually trying to act with some dignity here instead of contributing to the sea of fury. And while Terri remains alive, that may actually work. They can say later that they were not the ones who tried to bend the law to their will and that they believed in the Constitutional framework and the right of an individual to choose. But increasing the bitterness right now might not do very much for them. I think the prevailing wisdom is that when the other guy is shooting himself in the foot, you let it happen and don’t get involved right away.
Now I dislike Bush with a fiery passion. I think his signing of the Schiavo bill is blatant pandering and hypocritical. However, I think the claims that the Texas bill allows hospitals to pull the plug because someone can’t pay is wrong and unnecessarily inflammatory. It does allow hospitals to pull the plug over the wishes of a patient or legal guardian if it is medically determined to be futile and they are given time to find a facility willing to take over treatment. I’ve read the bill and it seems to me to be ethically sound. I believe withdrawing support for merely financial reasons would not be considered ethical and would subject the hosipital and doctors involved to civil, and possibly criminal, action.
Barbarian, is that the same CBS poll I linked to last night? It’s also important to note that the poll oversampled Republicans relative to Democrats by a nearly two to one margin.
So let me understand; the hospital may invoke this law if the patient’s family can’t pay their bill, but they are given time to find a different hospital who, with any luck, doesn’t mind not being paid? This makes it OK?
My favorite example is an old Knights of the Dinner Table story in which the party is faced with a demon who could flatten them all without breaking a sweat. Brian (the rules-lawyer of the group) announced that he’s throwning a handful of pebbled at the demon and insists on rolls to see if the demon is distracted, is injured, loses his balance, etc, leading to the punch line “Did you roll for each pebble?”
Well, that’s his problem. Jeb turning for help to someone with any intellectual honesty is like Superman turning for help to someone with a pocket full of kryptonite.
You are, of course, correct. The bill does allow for a hospital to remove feeding tubes against the wishes of the next of kin. I was wrong to intimate that the lack of payment would be the deciding factor in that determination. And, from my brief reading, I would probably support the bill myself.
My post you quoted was, obviously, meant to be inflammatory. It was to emphasize the massive degree to which Bush is a hypocritical bastard.
No. They must find that the treatment is medically futile or inappropriate. Withdrawal of treatment for inability to pay is considered unethical and would probably lead to censure by the state medical board and open the hospital and doctors to civil and criminal charges.
If it is even remembered at all come elections, it will be… “Wow! Can you believe those liberal activist judges murdered that lady?! We should give more power to Dear Leader to stop our courts from committing such crimes against Our Gawd!”
I’m sure this is covered somewhere in the 12,456 (at last count) threads on this Board, but this is the only one I’ve actually opened up (so don’t go calling me any names in 64-point font). luci (or whoever wants to take up the gauntlet), do you have a cite for this? I ask not in a confrontational manner, but more in a scientific, “How intriguing” fashion. Has anybody ever recorded a person in a Persistent Vegitative State when people were NOT around? Is there footage of this online somewhere?
Clinically speaking, devoid of any sort of emotion, the incredible number of shades of gray between “alive” and “dead” are incredibly fascinating. I for one would like to learn more.
If Brian was ever in a game of mine I would have thrown his ass out so fast it’d violate Einstein (not in that way!).
Dealing with fools like Abbie, though, you have to wonder if people who keep trying are making the situation better (smacking her ignorant ass down on an hourly basis) or worse (for not ignoring her for a near-troll).
Doh, I forgot to ask: I’ve seen in a couple places claims from a nurse that Ms. Schiavo can say, “Hi Mommy” or whatever. What’s the scoop on such claims? I suspect that it’s similar to a scene in The Simpsons when Maggie burps and Homer exclaims, “Did you hear that?? She said burlap!” But I’d like to know for sure.
And feel free for taking me to task for not looking for the answer in the plethora of threads. I can take it
Not quite. Firstly the care has to be determined to be futile. That decision is automatically reviewed by a board, on which the original doctor can not sit. If the board agrees the care is futile then they provide a document to this effect to the responsible party. A ten day clock starts at this point. They can either continue care or transfer the patient to another physician or facility. If another facility can not be found in this timeframe, but maybe with some more looking, then the responsible party(next of kin for the patient generally) can appeal for an extension of the timeframe. Once the time runs out the doctor/facility may choose to cease to provide futile care. Nothing in the bill mentions cost of care. All it does is allow doctors to be able to refuse to administer care which has been deemed futile and that analysis has been backed up by an automatic review by a seperate medical/ethics board.
In general the law states that doctors and facilities must do anything in their power to keep people alive regardless of their ability to pay. Also, in general, doctors and facilities don’t mind keeping people on ventilators and life support as long as there is capacity and funding. So about the only place where futile care runs afoul of the prohibition on refusing care is when there is no money to pay for the care. Then the law generally forces doctors and facilities to provide the care anyway and this bill gives a small out in the specific case of futile care.
Futile care, by the way, is defined as care being given to terminal patients with no hope of recovery. Terri Schiavo is not terminal. Persistent Vegatitive State is not considered a terminal condition. Chronic, yes, but not terminal. She could live in PVS for 30-40 years and eventually die of natural causes.
