reprinted from www.backupamerica.org
Post the Terri Schiavo case so long ago, it appears that many states throughout the nation are using both the courts, and new statutes in order to redefine the provisions of many of those "living wills" that are being marketed and sold to a great many Americans as part of their estate planning.
Recently, a story was related to me by a resident of the State of Louisiana that demonstrated just what is occuring after the death of Teri Schiavo – who died, of course, under a judicial fiat in Florida a few years ago deeming that feeding and hydration intubation also was a artificial life support, rather than the definition that had held and was understood by most Americans to be "mechanical methods" such as respirators or other devices gave little hope for a recovery without major heart/brain or other organ function damage and was or would be irreversible.
It seems this young woman’s grandmother had suffered a stroke at a rather young age according to life expectancy charts, and was being fed due to her inability to swallow post the stroke and was being fed and hydrated by artificial means by feeding tubes and hydrated intravenously. She was still aware and alert although had some minimal brain damage due to the stroke, which doctors felt even could be reversed.
Apparently, one of the members of the family thought and felt differently, and hired a lawyer to challenge and remove the feeding tubes and hydration methods per what occurred with Ms. Schiavo.
The grandmother had executed a "living will," although at the time the will was executed, Louisiana law did not view hydration and feeding intubation as "artificial means" but "basic sustenance" which is needed by all humans in order to survive.
Remove hydration, especially, and the organs progressively begin to shut down one by one. In fact, this is the worse method for any human life to end since the body literally then feeds upon itself in order to survive.
After the Schiavo case, this young woman learned during the court proceedings that Louisiana law was change in order then post Schiavo to redefine and include "basic sustenance" also as "artificial means," and a judge so ruled again in that state that the feeding and hydration tubes should be removed per the terms of her grandmother’s living will.
Now even included in hospital admittance forms some states are including such language as "artificial" life support, without also including upon the admittance of those patients that state laws are changing with respect to the clear definition of just what is, and what is not, "artificial life support."
And how many patients, or their closest relatives or spouses charged with signing all those lengthy forms now upon admittance have the time or even awareness in such a time of fear for their loved one or emergency to ask some of those very relevant questions prior to treatment? In the future, could not, say, an insurance company as the payor then also bring suit in order to discontinue payment for provision of such measures under these now changing laws throughout the nation?
Even now the laws regarding euthansia are being written, however, how many patients really at the time such a decision might be broached by a doctor or even relative, can make a sane, rational decision in such respect when many are even under medications that make even those "sound mind" common law provisions with respect to the execution of legal documents questionable?
Taxing not only citizens while they are living, but also now even their accumulated assets after death (upon which taxes actually have already been paid, absent the current year’s assets or accumulations) does appear that greed at the state level and the commercial interests that also are involved such as those insurers and even beneficiaries without having any "legal" authority or powers of attorney "rights" given who favor death over life for personal or corporate gain are gaining legal "rights" in leaps and bound changing many of those living wills executed in years gone by fundamentally in the process.
All those boomers that are now aging to retirement age might just want to once again compare their living wills with their state laws now, and while still of "sound mind," redefine their clear wishes in this regard before it is too late and find that the state and commercial interests (or their rogue relative) is using the courts and states to undermine their "right to life," perhaps prematurely.
I mean, as with the Schiavo case, whose to say that a cure for the degree of brain damage Ms. Schiavo suffered might have been found before her natural life expectancy was reached, or even due to the fact that she had never had any physical rehabilitation whatsoever and had other relatives willing and able to provide for her care absent her already "married" for all intents and purposes spouse, that the "state" or a relative with no legal authority per any executed power of attorney, should have any rights to dominion over another with respect to providing "basic sustenance" which any newborn or incapacitated person must have in order to survive.
Irreversible today, does not mean irreversible tomorrow, as research and technology strides in medicine are proving each and every day.
Nor should any third party payor have any inherent "rights" to use the states in order to increase their profit margins, or their risk factors at the cost of human life, which is occurring more and more rapidly in each and every state across the nation.
And will increase now in leaps and bounds at the federal and state levels since the recent Supreme Court decision affording "unlimited" contributions to political office candidates from those financial industry vipers now undermining the First Amendment rights of all Americans now liberally and progressively in favor of the "corporate."
I hope those Supreme Court justices have a living will and are inserting a few words and redefining just what their definition of "artificial life support" is, and re-evaluating their positions to remove those "unalienable" First Amendment provisions more and more from the "people" and redistributing both the American people’s wealth, and their lives, to the corporate before they find themselves in one of those federally funded corporate hospitals, or one of their nearest and dearest, after refusing to hear Schiavo.