Jump to content

Right to Die rights


JUGGERNAUT

Should Right-to-Die rights be decided in Federal courts?  

5 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Right-to-Die rights be decided in Federal courts?

    • YES - The establishment of an r-t-d requires the best medical opinions the nation (and not the just a state) has to offer.
      1
    • NO
      4


Recommended Posts

The Terri Schiavo case has brought to question a much bigger issue. Should the establishment of r-t-d rights remain with the states or be moved to the Fed?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/a...nning_for_death

 

We have heard a lot about medical opinion in this case. I've also read the story behind the book Kate's Journey. Mis-diagnosis of PVS happens often enough to were it is a real concern. A study in the UK put it as high as 40%.

 

Maybe Terri's diagnosis was correct. Maybe it wasn't. But for those of you who feel it is conclusive just consider the debate by medical professionals alone over this conclusive decision. Now imagine how many Terri's there might be each year who are in states that are less conclusive.

 

I think the reality of the situation strongly suggests that the courts medical opinion on this matter must represent the finest minds the nation has to offer. That would be the case if r-t-d rights were decided in Federal courts. When I heard there are 30,000 such cases a year I think that's a large enough number to establish a nation review board to oversee these cases. That board would be made up of the leading minds in the fields of diagnosising incapacitated persons.

 

As I said before if you look at the MO statute the USSC upheld in 1990 requiring that r-t-d right be clear & conclusive I do not believe Terri's r-t-d would have been established in MO. Is that fair to her family?

 

The USSC has ruled that no state can deny a r-t-d right. They have left open the right for states to define measures in establishing that right. What good does that do? Does it not make more sense for a national r-t-d review board made up of experts in the field to define those measures for all states? They would make their recommendations to the US Congress & then the US Congress would enact them into law. Everyone could look upon their loved ones with reassurance that in the event their r-t-d right needs to be exercised the finest minds in the land on the subject have defined the rules of procedure. Is that not the most logical approach?

Edited by JUGGERNAUT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics. Everything is decided by economics. How much would it cost to put the "finest minds in the nation" on this board? It ain't gonna happen. It's cheaper to let them die. Forgive my jaded attitude, but I've been around a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Economics.  Everything is decided by economics. How much would it cost to put the "finest minds in the nation" on this board?  It ain't gonna happen.  It's cheaper to let them die.  Forgive my jaded attitude, but I've been around a while.

 

I think it will cost a lot less for national review board than for deliberation costs in each of the 50 states on these cases. Schiavo is not the first & certainly won't be the last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a federal system of states. Individual medical decisions in regards of "end of life" issues are best left to community standards and a smaller state bureaucracy.

 

We a nation of intelligent people who know that our collective intelligence is far superior to that of any one person who determines community standards or is member of a smaller state bureaucracy.

 

We are nation of people that know man's hope lies in science & technology & not that of a bureaucrats opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 24, 2005 -> 12:16 PM)
We a nation of intelligent people who know that our collective intelligence is far superior to that of any one person who determines community standards or is member of a smaller state bureaucracy.

 

We are nation of people that know man's hope lies in science & technology & not that of a bureaucrats opinion.

 

Mankind's demise has as much chance of coming via science and technology as it's hope does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're the one advocating a large bureaucracy and allowing standards for everyone to be set by a few.

 

Community standards, are by definition, set by a community and not just one - or a handful - of people. Each state has a set of rights and responsibilities and our federal government is specifically limited in its power over our everyday lives, including our end of life decisions.

 

I frankly do not see a problem with the system that Florida has in place. If no written living will exists, the decision lies with the person's guardian. If there is a dispute between other family members, it can be resolved through a state's judicial system. After all, it is by definition there to adjudicate disputes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mankind's demise has as much chance of coming via science and technology as it's hope does.

 

I can't argue there. But in respect to national review board devoted to science & technology pertaining to incapacitated persons I think the chance of demise is minimal.

 

Decisions involving medical science should not be localized. They should be nationalized & globalized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 24, 2005 -> 02:00 PM)
I can't argue there.  But in respect to national review board devoted to science & technology pertaining to incapacitated persons I think the chance of demise is minimal.

 

Decisions involving medical science should not be localized.  They should be nationalized & globalized.

 

Absolutely, let's let the French treat you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're globalising it. You get no choice.

 

You've just been demoted to Ghana.

 

Whoa! I didn't say the UN gets to decide my fate! I want that right! I demand that right! Globalizing to me is we include procedures around the world as possibilities towards health care.

 

The UN is a cess-pool of corruption. No thank you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 24, 2005 -> 01:28 PM)
Its democracy.  We all voted, and in order to save some money, we decided Ghana was best for you.  Sorry. ;)

 

 

I voted China.. don't they kill girls there.. :huh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just in case it's not clear... I'm kidding.. kinda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...