Fla. Stat. 765.401:
(1) If an incapacitated or developmentally disabled patient has not executed an advance directive, or designated a surrogate to execute an advance directive, or the designated or alternate surrogate is no longer available to make health care decisions, health care decisions may be made for the patient by any of the following individuals, in the following order of priority, if no individual in a prior class is reasonably available, willing, or competent to act:
(a) The judicially appointed guardian of the patient or the guardian advocate of the person having a developmental disability as defined in s. 393.063, who has been authorized to consent to medical treatment, if such guardian has previously been appointed; however, this paragraph shall not be construed to require such appointment before a treatment decision can be made under this subsection;
(b) The patient's spouse; ...
(3) Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.
----------------
One may disagree with the evidence or draw other conclusions from it, but, conceived as physician-assisted suicide performed in accordance with "what the patient would have chosen," I don't understand why progressives, liberals, libertarians, whatever, would oppose what Florida courts did. If one believes that she did indeed express a preference for this outcome to her spouse, what is the basis for the objection, other than that, after the fact, she may have changed her mind that she may or may not have had any longer (which I am not rejecting out of hand as a legitimate objection, although if that's the case, it means that no advance directive--even a formal, written one--is valid)? I admit that I haven't followed the case closely, but I gathered that her husband was sincere (and at least credible enough to convince the courts that heard the evidence as to his spouses' wants).
-----Original Message----- From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org] On Behalf Of C. G. Estabrook Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 10:25 PM To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Schiavo had half a regulation brain
Actually, I do buy the lone gunman theory: 40 years of investigation haven't shown anything else to be the case.
And I don't think courts should order that someone be made dead (as Ralph Nader put it) because judges are not satisfied with her brain capacity.
Just as I don't think that they should order people be sterilized because (in the words of SC Justice O. W. Holmes), "Three generations of idiots are enough."
But I am a bit surprised at the willingness of some progressives to acquiesce in state-ordered killing. --CGE
---- Original message ----
>Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2005 15:55:33 -0500
>From: Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Schiavo had half a regulation brain
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>>
>but DR bill frist (he has an md, you know) watched
>*videotapes* of her and concluded that she was NOT in a "persistent
>vegetative state"!
>
>i'll bet y'all buy the lone gunman theory, too.
>
>suckers.
>
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk