There but for “the grace…” —
A man with an incurable brain condition has lost his final legal appeal to insist that doctors give him food and drink in the final stages of his life.
Leslie Burke, from Lancaster, feels he will be denied sustenance when his illness makes him unable to speak.
The European Court of Human Rights said it did not believe there was a real threat that his food would be stopped. The European judges refused to reverse a UK ruling that allows doctors to decide a patient’s treatment.
Mr Burke, 46, has Friedreich’s ataxia. It causes a lack of co-ordination, but does not affect mental faculties.
This is certainly not the forum to reopen the Terri Schiavo affair — my posts are the subject can be found at this chain. And I have remained on the sidelines regarding the teenaged cancer victim who was almost forced to undergo debilitating and painful chemotherapy against his will.
I’ll simply note that I consider it axiomatic that food and water are, um, food and water and not “medical care” in the strict sense. And that knowingly permitting a patient under your care for Friedreich’s ataxia to die against his wishes — not of Friedreich’s ataxia, but of dehydration — is homicide.
Discuss.
(Via Medpundit.)
—
Perhaps the European courts are correct and Mr. Burke’s litigation was simply not ripe, as we say in the U.S. And perhaps a properly drafted “living will” would preempt any issues or concerns.
On the other hand, a legally recognized spouse would certainly also address those concerns. Generally speaking, when there is any uncertainty, a spouse has the final say about medical decisions when the patient cannot communicate. No living will necessary. Advisable, but not strictly necessary.
Just one of the more than 1,000 ways in which gays suffer in the name of “defending traditional marriage.”
It’s absolutely barbaric.
6 Comments
It is not clear to many whether having a legally recognized spouse helped or hurt in the Terri Schiavo case.
It does not seem that much more difficult to create a living will than it is to make your full desires known to your spouse. Or provide for a medical power of attorney.
Personally, I do not want to burden my spouse with those descisions. It seems cruel.
I hereby declare that the word “tree” also includes fish, and anyone who says otherwise is a fish-hating bigot!
I will sue the government to change the language! You are all nasty bigoted people for not agreeing with me!
—————-
Note that language has a meaning. Even people who might otherwise agree marriage being limited to 1 man and 1 woman creates a state of unequal rights might well (and often do) object to this method of social “change”.
Redefining state constitutions and/or statutes to mean something other than they have meant for literallly longr than living memory is a very bad idea, no matter the cause.
“Finding” new rights in old documents is a form of that, and it’s a very bad thing to do. One of the core principles of the rule of law is the ability to know what the law IS. Such sudden revelations do enormous harm to that concept.
Fight for legal change, if you wish, but do so through legislation.
Oh, and thanks for referring to the entire history of human civilization (right up to the present day) as “barbaric”. I agree, and I expect no change to that as long as “human civilazation” involves “humans”.
[Kip replies: As for “the entire history of human civilization” having been “barbaric” — one word: “slavery.” And your understanding of the history of heterosexual marriage through “the entire history of human civilization” is hopelessly sophomoric.]
Thanks for the gratuitous and grossly inaccurate insult. In my experience, not uncommon for those on the side of tradition, especially on this topic.
As to my “understanding of the history of heterosexual marriage”, it is quite a bit more than I have mentioned (yes, I am actually familiar with the history of marriage, involving treating women as property, having multiple wives, acceptable and common infidelity for men only, greek homosexuality, non-marrying cultures [yes, there have been a few, though there impact on the world has been negligible – coincidence?], and many other portions of the history of marriage).
That I must be “hopelessly sophomoric” because I come to a different conclusion than you is, again, in my experience, par for the course on the topic of homosexual “marriage”. You’ll excuse me if I don’t find that level of “debate” useful or persuasive.
Suffice it to say that when one sees the word “marriage” in any historical text of any significance anywhere, there is one man involved and usually one woman (though occasionally more).
It’s a fairly simple concept, actually: “marriage” came about for the creation and protection of families (even when portions or the majority of those families were considered property instead of people). That we use marriage for non-child-bearing couples (due largely to birth control) now does not change the intent… you’re a lawyer, so I think you would be familiar with the concept of the “bright line”.
Whether homosexual unions should be granted equal status with marriage is a different debate from the one I am engaged in. The issues I am complaining against in your post are
-judgement of history by the standards of a small subset of modern society
-subjugation of language to government whim (see 1984 for an extreme example of why that is bad – I’m not claiming that’s the level here, just a good example of why it’s bad)
-assumption of ignorance on the part of those who disagree with you
-judicial “discovery” of new “rights” in old documents
None of those issues touch on whether homosexual unions should be recognized, or in what fashion.
Please check your own prejudices before trying to call others on theirs.
[Kip replies: I can only respond to what you actually write. And what you wrote in the previous comment was in fact hopelessly sophomoric. If that’s your definition of “grossly inaccurate,” and “prejudice,” then so be it.]
I don’t completely understand the comment concerning homosexual rights.
At least in California they are welcome to set up living will, POA’s, directives to physicians and whatnot as they see fit. My workplace provides these services daily to same-sex couples.
I personally would prefer a legal document to a spouse that thinks they know what I want and is subject to (understandable) emotional waffling at inopportune moments.
Slavery as an institution is barbaric by whose standard and definition? Yours? I’ve read the bible’s definition/laws on slavery and I hardly find it “barbaric”, but very civilized. It had a specific SOCIAL purpose, and was meant to improve upon unfortunate circumstances; sort of like divorce. How are prisons any different?
I agree with Deoxy on this. Your response was rather insulting.
Your post stating:
“in which gays suffer in the name of ‘defending traditional marriage.’ It’s absolutely barbaric.”
was particularly sophomoric and provocative. I really have never seen Overlawyered as a blog for the gay agenda.
[Kip replies: Wow — ‘White Man’s Burden’ in the Twenty-First Century. Astounding. And a bit scary.]
I notice you didn’t allow my last comment, but hey, you’ve got the mic…
As to Jeff, if you’ll notice, he’s referring to slavery as historically practiced in most of the world – that is, slaves are slaves because they are slaves, not because of their skin color.
Not that I agree with him that it was just peachy, but to invoke “white man’t burden” when he was rather specifically referring to slavery well before those concepts were even formulated is a bit unfair.
I’m sensing a pattern in that, so I think I will wait on further comments until you are gone and actual debate is again allowed.