A question regarding the Schiavo appeals.

[SackAttack]

I saw this little blurb in a CNN.com article about the latest court denial of the Schindlers' petition:

Originally Posted by CNN.com

Last week, in a 21-18 vote, the state Senate narrowly defeated a bill that would have prevented doctors from removing a feeding tube from patients who had not expressed their wishes in writing.

Never mind, for the moment, that it was defeated. Wouldn't such a bill have been irrelevant to Terri Schiavo's case anyway? It seems to me that it would have been a blatant example of ex post facto, which the Constitution doesn't permit anyway. It might have helped (or hindered, depending on your viewpoint) future patients in Terri's situation, but would it really have mattered for her one way or the other if the Florida Senate had passed the bill?

[larrymcg421]

I don't think they were concerned about constitutionality. The idea is to pass a bill to delay the removal of the tube as long as possible. All it would have done was drag out the process longer and delay the inevitable. Several republicans probably realized this, which is why it got defeated.

[Cap Ologist]

I guess it would depend on the wording as to whether or not it could be retroactive. I think that Congress should have written a bill saying that in cases where a patient is unable to communicate or hasn't expressed their wishes in a legal document, the decision should be made by the parents, siblings, children and spouse and the majority wins. One person shouldn't be able to make a decision that impacts so many people.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

I guess it would depend on the wording as to whether or not it could be retroactive. I think that Congress should have written a bill saying that in cases where a patient is unable to communicate or hasn't expressed their wishes in a legal document, the decision should be made by the parents, siblings, children and spouse and the majority wins. One person shouldn't be able to make a decision that impacts so many people.

I don't think so. That's an awful idea. A truly horrid idea.

In every other legal decision, it's the husband/wife relationship that takes precedence over all others. Whether to get married. Birth. Adoption. Medical treatment. Finances. Child-raising. Even funeral arrangements. EVERYTHING. It is a one person relationship - in many ways, we're treated as one person. We file joint taxes. We owe the same debts.

Now you want to change that relationship? I could see a scenario where the majority wanted a woman to die against the wishes of her husband.

Sorry, but you didn't think that one out at all.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Cap Ologist

I guess it would depend on the wording as to whether or not it could be retroactive. I think that Congress should have written a bill saying that in cases where a patient is unable to communicate or hasn't expressed their wishes in a legal document, the decision should be made by the parents, siblings, children and spouse and the majority wins. One person shouldn't be able to make a decision that impacts so many people.

This is so infuriating! It is not only Michael Schiavo that is saying this. The court heard witnesses from both sides. He found the witnesses testifying that she wanted to die were more credible than the witnesses for the parents, especially the parents own testimony which was filled with inconsistencies. It is a huge misnomer that Michael is the only one who heard her say this.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

This is so infuriating! It is not only Michael Schiavo that is saying this. The court heard witnesses from both sides. He found the witnesses testifying that she wanted to die were more credible than the witnesses for the parents, especially the parents own testimony which was filled with inconsistencies. It is a huge misnomer that Michael is the only one who heard her say this.

Some people keep repeating it hoping it will come true.

"There's no place like home, there's no place like home, there's no place like home"

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I saw this little blurb in a CNN.com article about the latest court denial of the Schindlers' petition:

Never mind, for the moment, that it was defeated. Wouldn't such a bill have been irrelevant to Terri Schiavo's case anyway? It seems to me that it would have been a blatant example of ex post facto, which the Constitution doesn't permit anyway. It might have helped (or hindered, depending on your viewpoint) future patients in Terri's situation, but would it really have mattered for her one way or the other if the Florida Senate had passed the bill?

My understanding of the ex post facto clause is that it only relates to criminal cases. Any of the lawyers here pelase feel free to correct me.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My understanding of the ex post facto clause is that it only relates to criminal cases. Any of the lawyers here pelase feel free to correct me.

Well the thing is, the bill would have made it illegal for a doctor to remove the feeding tube unless the patient expressed that wish in writing at some point prior to her incapacitation.

That's my understanding of ex post facto - you can't pass a law criminalizing a behavior and then retroactively apply that law to any instances of the behavior that predate the law.

[Peregrine]

SackAttack, I'm no lawyer, but if the bill had passed, depending on its wording, wouldn't the removal of the feeding tube and the ongoing starvation of Schiavo mean it was an ongoing criminal act, not a past one? No one would be saying that doctors would be prosecuted if she had already died when the law was passed, but if the feeding tube could be put back in, wouldn't that mean the breaking of the law was ongoing?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

SackAttack, I'm no lawyer, but if the bill had passed, depending on its wording, wouldn't the removal of the feeding tube and the ongoing starvation of Schiavo mean it was an ongoing criminal act, not a past one? No one would be saying that doctors would be prosecuted if she had already died when the law was passed, but if the feeding tube could be put back in, wouldn't that mean the breaking of the law was ongoing?

That's what ex post facto is supposed to protect. If it wasn't against the law to remove the tube at the time it was removed, they can't pass a law making that act that happened in the past illegal. So if it wasn't originally illegal, it couldn't be an ongoing illegal act. Any removals after the law was passed and signed into law would be considered illegal, everything before that time couldn't be criminalized.

I was wondering about this legal aspect as well.