NYT: Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues

[DeepModem Mom]

Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

Published: March 28, 2005


WASHINGTON, March 27 - After a string of fruitless legal and legislative efforts, the central question in the Terri Schiavo case - Who makes end-of-life decisions when the patient's wishes are disputed? - is headed back to Capitol Hill, where debate over broader legislation has already begun.

On Sunday, lawmakers of both parties agreed that Congress has a role to play in such cases and should contemplate legislation that would give added legal recourse to patients like Ms. Schiavo. While it is difficult to predict whether such a measure could pass, the Schiavo case has clearly pushed thorny questions about end-of-life care to the fore on Capitol Hill, as well as in state legislatures around the nation.

The Republican-controlled House already passed a bill that would allow the federal courts to review cases like Ms. Schiavo's, in which the patient has left no written instructions, the family is at odds and state courts have ordered a feeding tube to be withdrawn. That bill evolved into one that was narrowly tailored to Ms. Schiavo.

Now some Democrats, prodded by advocates for the disabled, say Congress should consider whether such a law is needed.

"I think we should look into this and very possibly legislate it," said Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who opposed Congressional action in the Schiavo case. Mr. Frank was speaking on Sunday on the ABC News program "This Week With George Stephanopoulos." Mr. Frank added: "I think Congress needs to do more. Because I've spoken with a lot of disability groups who are concerned that, even where a choice is made to terminate life, it might be coerced by circumstances."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28cong.html?hp&ex=1111986000&en=144374224e9cb303&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[mikehiggins]

1. So, even if I am clear as glass about my wishes regarding DNR

if my second cousin on my aunt's side protests it will all end up in Federal Court?

I can understand the desire of disabled people to continue on with their lives but if I choose not to live in such a fashion (I admit I don't have the balls Christopher Reeve did) and leave clearly defined statements to that effect the Feds will now come in and make sure I remain "on the side of life?"

I thought this had been settled long ago but now it looks like my freedom to choose will have to be battled out all over again.

Thanks ever so much.

[Erika]

2. Mr. Frank wants bigger government?

and more federal intervention into private lives?

[HockeyMom]

6. Time Machine

We seem to be reliving the Scopes Trial, and Karen Ann Quinlan and Nancy Cruzan cases. Will Galileo be next on the list?

[booksenkatz]

3. Let me get this straight

If under the law, marriage is just a little ole agreement between two people, with no more import than the agreement you have with, say, the teenager up the street who cuts your grass every week; if a married couple has no more say over each other's medical care than I might have over the medical care of a stranger on the street;

...then why are my gay friends not allowed to enter into this casual, basically meaningless, agreement? If it is no big whoop, legally speaking, then why do the Repubs scream, "Marriage is sacred!" and fight to deny it to a segment of Americans who pay taxes just like everyone else does? If the Repubs want to declare marriage No Big Deal, that would be fine with me, as long as they let my gay friends marry, as well.

Is my logic is off?

[kskiska]

7. All this at the same time they're promoting

"covenant marriages," making it harder to divorce.

[cornermouse]

10. Covenant marriages are an attempt to head off the

inevitable increase in divorces as people have less money, fight more over what money they do have, other problems such as trying to support disabled children and/or parents which is also on the rise creating more pressure on the family unit, lack of ability to file bankruptcy, credit card companies, and all the other republican measures that they have been piling on the families, eventually ending up in divorce court due to the increased stress on the family.

At least that's my opinion.

[Mel]

8. Nope it's their logic

and their so called 'family values' that's wacked! Not yours!

[Mel]

4. Instead of debating OUR

end of life issues why the hell don't they talk about some Universal Health Care?

Congress if you can't address our need for Universal Health Care then you need to keep your damn laws OFF my body!:argh:

[radfringe]

12. Universal Health Care????!!!!

<sarcasm on> but that's socialized medicine -- do you want the government or some minimum-wage clerk making medical decisions for you? <sarcasm off>

[Inland]

5. No panic. The outlines of the consensus are now clear.

Go ahead and debate, since it is going to be, at most, procedural tweaking.

If anything, the desire of the public to leave the decision to the individual and her family is going to be reaffirmed.

on edit: do you think the repugs want another debate, where the fundies are all clamoring for restrictions disliked by 75% of the public? Do you think the repubs are going to look forward to the first instance of a person who wanted to die, and a family who wants to let them go, and a hopeless case, but they are kept alive thanks to Delay?

[katsy]

9. I'm confused.

What is preventing the disabled, or anyone for that matter from specifying that they want extraordinary measures taken to keep them alive.

[cornermouse]

11. Nothing as long as they are considered mentally

competent. Generally speaking, if they want extraordinary measures taken, they can get it.