3/18/2005
Schiavo case
This is a really an amazing thing. The usual party discipline broke down in the Florida Senate and nine Republicans voted with Democrats not to pass a bill that could keep future patients hooked up to hydrating tubes against the wishes of theirs families. This is not a repeat of the 2003's 24-hour insta-bill when Republican legislators who did not like the legislation voted for it anyway out of loyalty to the governor and fear of the Christian Right. (See the Flablog Vault of Memory here and here. Sadly, most of the links are dead.)
For best, rhetoric-free news, links, documents and explanations of this case always look to Abstract Appeal.
+ St Pete Times editorial: Thanks to the courage of 21 state senators, the Legislature is less likely to impose its will upon Terri Schiavo and other Floridians in her situation.
+ Tallahassee Democrat op-ed piece talks a little bit about the realities of feeding tubes and even objects to the term. (Web page has the italics all messed up.)
+ St. Pete Times overview here. It notes that in Congress:
+ Palm Beach Post coverage notes the problems with the "interested party" clause --
For best, rhetoric-free news, links, documents and explanations of this case always look to Abstract Appeal.
+ St Pete Times editorial: Thanks to the courage of 21 state senators, the Legislature is less likely to impose its will upon Terri Schiavo and other Floridians in her situation.
+ Tallahassee Democrat op-ed piece talks a little bit about the realities of feeding tubes and even objects to the term. (Web page has the italics all messed up.)
+ St. Pete Times overview here. It notes that in Congress:
Members in both chambers were clearly not familiar with all details of the case. They mispronounced her name. They proclaimed she was not in a vegetative state, even though experts say she is and a court agreed. They claimed she did not receive certain brain scans when she had. They wrongly claimed no judge had even granted a family member removal of a feeding tube.
+ Palm Beach Post coverage notes the problems with the "interested party" clause --
In such cases, it would then require that the patient had explicitly and specifically asked that such life support be withheld, and if a judge did allow the removal and the tube was removed, it would allow an "interested party" to subsequently ask a court to decide again whether food and water should be withheld.
But the "interested party" clause caused many to balk. Sen. J.D. Alexander, R-Lake Wales, said that could mean anybody could intervene, including "some crazy group in Seattle.
