For the last few days, a hot debate spread around the US and indeed the whole world regarding the decisions taken by judicial, legislative and executive authorities in the Schiavo case. The Vatican itself <a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/22/schiavo.vatican/index.html">considered the case</a>. In its now famous "Terri Law" (Pub. L. No. 109-3), the Congress implicitly admitted that it is something wrong with the law as it currently is and sensed that it "should consider policies regarding the status and legal rights of incapacitated individuals who are incapable of making decisions concerning the provision, withholding, or withdrawal of foods, fluid, or medical care". (Sec. 9)
I would like to hear everybody's opinion about that. Should such a consideration be undertaken and how? What clauses should contain a statute enacted for the purposes set forth in Sec. 9 above? What should be the status and legal rights of those incapacitated? Should the difference between 'brain damaged' and 'brain dead' matter and how should this be determined? etc...
Since Mrs. Schiavo's suit will probably end (I don't believe that the US Supreme Court will grant the certiorari) and with it also Mrs. Schiavo's misery, I think it will be interesting to review what should be done so that in the future such conflict won't arise again.
I would like to hear everybody's opinion about that. Should such a consideration be undertaken and how? What clauses should contain a statute enacted for the purposes set forth in Sec. 9 above? What should be the status and legal rights of those incapacitated? Should the difference between 'brain damaged' and 'brain dead' matter and how should this be determined? etc...
Since Mrs. Schiavo's suit will probably end (I don't believe that the US Supreme Court will grant the certiorari) and with it also Mrs. Schiavo's misery, I think it will be interesting to review what should be done so that in the future such conflict won't arise again.