Homer Said: “And this Terri Schiavo case illustrates that they are completely, 100%, out of ideas. They have nothing. No plans except to purge, no guiding ideology other than the complete elimination of opposition. That’s it. They don’t have anything to offer the country.”

Rediculous. The Teri Schiavo case is just another in a long series of Media Circus cases (like the Peterson case, OJ case the Michael Jackson case, Elian Gonzalez case, etc). All the other exciting and historic stuff going on in the world and all CNN/FOX/ABC/NBC/CBS can seem to talk about is Teri Schiavo. UGH!! The significant element of this case, like that of the Elian Gonzalez case, is that it has a political angle and both sides activists get all cranked up. After Schiavo is dead, there will be another case that captures the media attention and feeds on the nation’s voyeristic tendencies. The Elian Gonzalez case is now a footnote in history, Teri Schiavo will be the same.

There *IS* a debate in the Republican Party between the Relgious Right Conservatives and what I will call the “Constitutional Conservative” Republicans. These conflicts and debates are good to my mind. A good many believe that Congressional Republicans were overstepping their bounds. Although, if they were really all THAT wide-eyed and radical about it it was in truth a pretty wimpy-ass and pathetic attempt to do it. I can’t help believe if they were REALLY that hard core, they could have done ALOT more. As a matter of fact, alot of talk I’ve heard from the Ultra Right-Wing has be VERY critical of Republican Politicians, The Supreme Court and George & Jeb Bush specifically for NOT DOING ENOUGH, saying that they’ve been betrayed, that the Bush should sent in Federal Marshalls…or the national guard…or silly stuff like that. The Supreme Court, the one that has often been accused here of running amuck and being virtually Missionaries of the Religious Right, refused to hear the case. How Radical is that??

My position on this case essentially mirrors that of other Republicans that believe there are strong Constitutional limitations in place here the put this outside the Federal realm, despite what our personal feelings may be. The Florida courts are in charge of making this decision, and they appear to have done a conscientious job. All the other courts, including The Supreme Court, seem to agree. Maybe they came to the right decision, and maybe they didn’t. But respecting their role in the system, and not rushing to overturn all the rules because we don’t like the outcome, seems to me to be part of being a member of civilized society rather than a mob. Trampling the Constitution in an earnest desire to do good in high-profile cases has been a hallmark of a certain sort of liberalism, and it’s the sort of thing that alot of us “Constitutional Conservative” Republican generally figured most conservatives avoid. I may BLOG about it myself, but until then I will just present the writing of another Constitutional Conervative that I think sums up how I view this case and the divisions over it. HERE

I would also recommend reading the of Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion in CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261 (1990), which is a simlar case to this.

“George W. Bush signing a Texas bill into law which allows hospitals to stop treatment of terminally-ill patients over the objections of legal guardians for NOT BEING ABLE TO PAY.”

As usual its painfully obvious you have never read the damn bill or researched the context of the bill to know about the state of the law before and after its passing that your trying to speak as a knowledgable authority on. The situation you describe existed for years before Bush came to office, NOT because of the 1999 bill he signed. In August 1996 the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article describing procedures then in effect in Houston hospitals. Under these procedures, if a doctor wished to deny a patient lifesaving medical treatment and the patient or the patient’s surrogate instead steadfastly expressed a desire for life, the doctor would submit the case to the hospital ethics committee. The patient or surrogate would be given 72 hours notice of the committee meeting would be allowed to plead for the patient’s life at it. During that short 72 hour period, the patient or surrogate, while preparing to argue for life, could also try to find another health care provider willing to give the lifesaving treatment, food or fluids. If the ethics committee decided for death, under these procedures there was no appeal. There was no provision that the food, fluids, or lifesaving treatment be provided after the decision while the patient or family tried to find another hospital willing to keep the patient alive. S So under these procedures, the hospitals in Houston were denying life-saving treatment, food and fluids against the wishes of patients and their families, when the hospital ethics committees said their quality of life was too poor. Patients and families were being given only 72 hours after being notified of the proposed denial to find another health care provider.

In 1999, the votes just weren’t there in the Texas Legislature to require lifesaving treatment, food, or fluids be provided by unwilling hospitals. So there were negotiations that resulted in a bill that gave partial protection. The 1999 bill:

1) Formalized more protections for in-hospital review
2) Gave patients 10 days of treatment while seeking transfer, and
3) Authorized court proceedings to extend the 10 days for reasonable additional periods to accomplish transfer.

It was an important advance over the existing situation of no legal requirement of treatment pending transfer, for any period of time. The votes were not there in the Texas legislature to accomplish a more protective bill. So Governor Bush signed it because it was an improvement over the existing law.

So let me help you and your reader. Its called the Texas Advance Directives Act of 1999 and HERE is a copy of it.

And here is a link to writeups about the Act:

HERE – From the Office of Clinical Ethics, Baylor Baylor Health Care System, and the Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas, Texas.

HERE – From The University of Houston Law Center Institute of Health Law and Policy in a 1999 Issue of the Texas Medical Center News.

HERE – A column in the Lahey Clinic Medical Ethics Journal regarding the 1999 Act by a Dr of the The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center Houston, TX

And finally a VERY simple 1999 writeup by a lawyer on what the Act would fix in Texas law found HERE.