Thursday, March 24
BillHobbs.com - A comment from me
BillHobbs.com - Political punditry and blog-journalism from Nashville.:
I would like to see Congress pass, and the President sign, a law that says if any person who has no living will comes to be in a position where a living will would be helpful, any decision in a squabble or dispute over her care must err on the side of maintaining life, and hearsay evidence such as that offered by Michael Schiavo would not be admissable.
That's nice. I assume that this would trump laws like the Texas law that allows insurance companies and hospitals to pull the plug on patients that are on respirators or feeding tubes, regardless of the wishes of the guardian. Especially with minors, like infants.
I guess I'm wondering who's going to pay for this law when the money runs out. Let's spend those Medicaid and Medicare tax dollars even faster for absolutely zero or close to it results. I guess we can just shove the expense on the poor guardians. They'll have to pay for it eventually, with the new bankruptcy law now in effect.And I would like to see Congress pass and the President sign a second law - call it the Terri Schiavo Living Will Act of 2005 - that would require all Americans age 18 and up have a signed, notarized, legal living will, and update it every five years. The law also would require courts, doctors and families to follow the directives of a patient's living will without deviation.
As far as the second law go, yeah, that's what I want, the Government telling me what to do, write that living will (might as well force me to write a regular will too), tell me not to look at porn, masterbations bad for you, force me into making contributions to a (private or personal, whatever the word of the day is) account so that the Government can save Social Security, make sure that I'm at my ideal weight and not obese, make sure that I take the correct drugs, make sure that I can't smoke, or make any incorrect choices as far as my health care is concerned (whatever that might be...)...
This is
my comment on what Mr. Hobbs proposed. His reponse:
Don't be absurd, Bryan Price. A law requiring adults to have a living will actually PROTECTS your personal freedom to make your own medical decisions even after you become incapacitated.
I suspect many Americans would chose a living will that mandates that the "plug" be "pulled" in many cases where, without one, the plug remains plugged in. The would reduce healthcare costs, not increase them.
And no living will should result in requiring healthcare providers to provide uncompensated care.
I would suggest commenters stop focusing on my specific suggestions - they were made off-the-cuff in a five-minute period of writing. Focus on the larger question: How do we prevent future cases such as this where the complete facts and truth are unknowable?
Step 1: Ban "oral" living wills unless they are audio- or video-recorded.
Posted by: Bill Hobbs at March 22, 2005 03:31 PM
I evidently didn't give enough irony warning. Mr. Hobbs wants the default for a living will to always "err on the side of maintaining life", which I don't know how that would be rendered in lawyerese. He totally misses out on the fact that the current
POTUS signed the law in Texas that allows the choice of whether or not to continue life support matters away from the guardians and on to the
insurance companies hospitals. Ironic? I think so. Or maybe it's just playing political football. Truly sad. If we were to truly err on the side of maintaining life, then why should financial
(or ethical? Since it seems to be the hospital's ethical commitee that decides these fates!) motives interfere with this? Just because money is involved? Maybe Mr. Hobbs had that thought in mind when he wrote that. Sorry, that doesn't work with me either. It's either full speed ahead, or let's have some real thought into this. Off-the-cuff five-minute periods of writing are fine.
Expect criticism of it. Don't bitch, and try to backpedal and say that was just to get people to think about how to change it.
At this point, I'm reminded of the saying, "Money changes everything", and it certainly does seem to be the case here. I guess the revised law would be "err on the side of maintaining life as long as the money doesn't run out", which I think changes the spirit and morallity of it to a different plane of existence. Twisted? Yes, but that is what happens when absolute ideals meet with reality.
He also misses the point that the spending I talked about was the "default" living will. Why he thought it was about living wills in general, I'm not sure. Since my comment was about his first law.
And as far as requiring citizens of the United States that reach a majority age to have a living will, and to make sure it's updated every 5 years… Isn't that a liberal standpoint? The government knows what is best for its citizens, and you
have to have a living will, or we'll fine your, or throw you into prison, or maybe we'll just have the IRS audit you? Just how damn absurd would this law be? Speaking of absurd… We don't have laws that require estate wills, and yet we need required living wills? I'm being absurd. Maybe it's because that's my response to absurd solutions.
Mr. Hobbs also seems to have a problem with hearsay evidence and oral living wills. Why rule out hearsay evidence for just living wills (for
either side I might add)? There have been many people convicted of crimes by hearsay evidence. Shall we throw those out as well? Shall we throw out all oral contracts as well? There are legal rules in place already for hearsay evidence. The trial judge 7 years ago heard all of the testimony, and from what I can read in the decision, after discounting the supposed "conflict of interest" that Michael Schiavo had, and finding that the Schindlers' testimony seemed to be contrived, and not all that forthcoming, still made the decision that he did. If things were reversed, would Mr. Hobb still feel that way about hearsay?
All in all, we are not going to be able to prevent future cases like this. The legislature can pass laws that might refine things a bit, but there are still going to be court battles over exactly this type of thing, regardless of what the laws say. If there was a law that laid out the heirarchy for just who is the guardian of such a patient, that started out with 1st choice being spouse, 2nd choice parents (maybe which one first?), etc, you're still going to see issues. There is no doubt in my mind that Michael Schiavo is the rightful guardian of Terri Schiavo. I really don't give a damn what his motives are. The SCOTUS keeps refusing to make issue about the frame of mind in police, why would they start thinking about the frame of mind for things like this? What happens when the person involved is single and has parents that are split about the issue? Especially when they are divorced? The courts are there for a reason, and to try and drag the federal courts into this is absolutely sick.
The Congresscritters have made a football out of Terri Schiavo, both Florida and US. I think that is horribly sad for the family. And I think that is truly marking a state of awfulness in the state of politics today. As far as I can tell right now, the system does work. The courts have done their job in looking for the truth as best as they are able, and have rendered a decision. Despite the best efforts of those who think that it is the wrong decision. As I write this, the SCOTUS has denied a stay from the Schindlers, and Judge Greer has denied "Jeb!"'s bid to take Terri under custody by DCF. The aftermath after Terri dies is going to be quite ugly, and I think it's going to be ugly for multiple reasons, on both sides.
I really hope this is the last time I spell out my feelings on this, here or on anyone else's site.
NB: I just noticed I
missplet masturbation. How silly of me!
NB: Updated with some links, and more clarification for me, that it is the hospital that makes the decision in Texas, not the insurance company. It still seems to be a matter of money in that case. Nobody has fought for somebody on death row like this either, with Dubya executing them left and right.
Relevant Link
Permanent link posted by bytehead @ 3/24/2005 03:30:00 PM 
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
I'm now down to fifth place when I used to be #1.
Blogger's about me: Your usual fat computer geek. Currently looking for work in the Jacksonville area and in Columbus. Network Administrator for hire!
♥ Sparx
♥ wookiemp164 aka Garfield116(x)
