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 March 24, 200521 yr by JUGGERNAUT

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.

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

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 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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

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.

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.

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

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.

Absolutely, let's let the French treat you.

 

Absolutely, let's let the French treat you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I prefer Japan thank you.

We're globalising it. You get no choice.

 

You've just been demoted to Ghana.

We're globalising it. You get no choice.

 

You've just been demoted to Ghana.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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!

Its democracy. We all voted, and in order to save some money, we decided Ghana was best for you. Sorry.

Its democracy.  We all voted, and in order to save some money, we decided Ghana was best for you.  Sorry.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dream on! No one would ever vote for that for fear of their ownself being sent there

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..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

You always have to be difficult :banghead

You always have to be difficult :banghead 

 

 

 

I've been called worse.

I've been called worse. 

 

And that's just today.

And that's just today.

 

 

 

 

Ohhhh snap!

Ohhhh snap! 

 

Something tells me if I continue down this road, I might need to explore my rights to die

Dream on!  No one would ever vote for that for fear of their ownself being sent there 

 

Sudan did have a better offer, but we didn't wanna lowball.

Dream on!  No one would ever vote for that for fear of their ownself being sent there 

 

 

Somebody's got to be the test case. You're elected. Congrats!

Somebody's got to be the test case.  You're elected. Congrats! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Japan. I have the $.