Sure. Republicans are for protecting people from the power of big government unless they are big government. And Democrats are spineless scum, just to be equitable.
I’ve got one, and a medical power of attorney, but what if a parent sues saying you told them you wanted to be kept alive no matter what, having changed your mind? What if Congress passes a law saying living wills count only if there is no hope of rescuscitation? It seems to me that they were never concerned about her wishes, only about keeping her alive no matter what.
See post #15. And don’t limit it just to Congress, any judge can overrule a LW as well. I t may not stand under appeal, but any one of them can interfere with it if so inclined.
The idea that my parents would some day make that decision for me, knowing as I do that there is no way in hell they’d actually honor my decision is terrifying and ridiculous. The person I designate should carry out my wishes. My parents should be told they no longer have a right to have a say, since I am no longer a child.
Especially given that the STATED INTENTION of Schiavo’s parents was to keep her alive no matter what her wishes were, I don’t even see that this case is a good impetus for such a goofy-ass law.
I completely disagree. A person is married only as long as he or she wants to be. Marriage is a legal contract. When you sign that contract, you are designating your spouse as the person to make decisions for you as long as that contract is in effect.
Probably far more than 50%. I’ve known very few people who have stayed as close to both parents as they are even to their friends, much less their spouses. Also, if a couple is divorced then there is no longer a contract so divorce is meaningless to the conversation.
What’s stopping anyone from doing that now? living wills allow you to designate someone other than your spouse to make decisions for you.
I’m flabbergasted at all the hatred and suspicion of marriage now coming from the right. If this Schiavo situation had been reversed and the husband wanted to jam a tube into his wife while the parents were petitioning to pull it, all those “right to life” activists would be popping blood vessles ranting about the sanctity of marriage. This is a bizarro world lately. I can’t fathom why anyone would think that two women picking out china patterns is a threat to their marriage but an attempt by the state to actually strip age old spousal rights from all Americans is not.
I think this will have to backfire. Is there anyone who is married who wants the government to intrude in this way. I feel genuinely threatened by this.
Mostly correct, but have you ever heard of “Battered Woman Syndrome”?
Many people stay in a marriage long after it is prudent to get out.
Even non-battered spouses (men and women) stay in unhealthy marriages for several reasons (for the kids, for economic reasons, etc). This is common knowledge.
You may be correct, but I’m going to have to ask for a cite for that one.
The point I was trying to make is that if 50% of marriages end in divorce, and the median marriage lasts, say, 15 years, and if a divorce comes after a few unhappy years, then for several marriages, a large percentage of their marriage was spent unhappily, even before they got divorced.
This means that, as we speak, a non-trivial percentage of marriages is on the rocks. And it is for that percentage of marriages where I think people might want someone other than their current spouse to be making life-or-death decisions.
Great, if the law already allows for this, then I don’t see the need for any change.
Well, I can’t call it bullshit, but it’s, at the very least, not looking at a bigger picture.
Divorce costs money. It involves making an appointment with a lawyer, having the papers drawn up and served, time for the spouse to find a lawyer, etc. Then you get the court date and hope it can all be done in one day. Many times it can’t.
And, of course, none of this happens until the lawyer is actually paid. That can add some time. It’s probable that for many it would be months, what with paying for another place to live and those utilities.
Of course, during this time the person is still married. And still calling the shots, even though they want to sever any social bond with you.
[Editorial]
And I will always disagree with marriage being a legal contract sanctioned by a state. It’s a covenant with God and no business of the State. This is why I’m opening to gay marriage. As far as laws go, it’s all about the taxes.
[/Editorial]
[QUOTE=rjung]
…“Terri’s Law,” which would allow “granting authority … to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it.”
So it doesn’t even have to be a parent overruling the spouse; it could be a very concerned and life-affirming sibling…QUOTE]
Siblings are second-degree.
Mind you, my brothers know me a lot better than my mother. She still wants me to wear my hair in little curls because “you were so pretty in this picture!” (from 34 years ago).
Having recently had a bunch of this stuff drawn up…
You can designate as many people as you want. You can have them act singly (I.E. whichever one they can contact has complete authority to make decisions) or in concert (I.E. they have to agree on the course of action before they have authority to make decisions). You can have it where one person has authority unless they choose to relinquish it or are incapable of weilding it… in which case it passes down to the next person you’ve named. I’m sure with some fancier wording you could set it up to allow any one to make certain decisions but require agreement on others… or basically any set-up you can imagine.
If the proposed law would override an existing living will, though… that’s just insane.
Of course, their consistency leaves something to be desired if we go back about 5 years, to the Elian Gonzales case. Back then, they thought that Elian’s surviving parent’s wishes should have been overridden.