Right To Medical Self Determination - A Wedge Issue For Our Side

[ruggerson]

This is a wedge issue if there ever was one. It will drive a huge divide between religious rightwing Republicans and libertarian/economic Republicans.

How about state constitutional amendments on the ballot in every state in 06 and 08 which read along the lines of:

"This state shall fully respect the medical wishes outlined in properly executed 'Living Wills.' This state shall not pass any legislation contravening such written, documented private medical decisions, nor shall it impede the expressed desires of individuals detailed in such legal documents."

You want to infuriate the religious righwingers and win amendments in every state except the deep south and energize huge factions in the Democratic party? - Let's wedge!

[cynatnite]

1. Excellent idea!

I'm preparing a LTTE about this plus writing other letters.

[ruggerson]

2. I think Dean would be perfect to spearhead this

It should be our "gay marriage" issue for 06 and 08. It takes the side of the right of the individual vs. the side of the Nanny State. I think it would win enormous pluralities in most states.

[cynatnite]

3. Perfect!

I'd love to see him get out there and tell that jerkoff Frist a doctor does not diagnose via video. He'd be perfect to counter this and give a common sense take that would resonate.

He's on my list of who I'm sending letters to.

[not systems]

8. The Doctor is in!

I hope he can work it.

[Silverhair]

4. I think living wills are already valid in all 50 states.

Here is a site that claims so, and has an online form for it.

http://www.legacywriter.com/livingwill_home.html

According to this site, she did NOT have a living will, hence the legal fight over who gets to say what should happen.

http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article9921.html
Here are the facts as this site sums them up:

"In May 1998, eight years after his wife lost consciousness, Michael petitioned Florida’s guardianship court. Why? To terminate life-prolonging procedures. He asked the court to let her die. Terri’s brain had deteriorated. Any hopes for recovery, short of a true miracle, were gone. Michael believed Terri would choose to die if she could decide for herself. She wouldn’t want to be kept alive artificially. The trial court determined Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that Michael was right. Terri’s parents disagreed and challenged the decision, kicking off court proceedings that continue to this day."

Your idea of a wedge issue evaporates as the laws that you seem to want to pass have ALREADY been passed.

[mondo joe]

5. Living wills can be challenged too. Anything can be challenged.

Including spousal rights, as we've just seen.

[Silverhair]

9. Yes, if you have the money for a good lawyer, you make a huge uproar.

Those parents are in deep denial.

[ruggerson]

6. Yep, I realize that

I'm not specifically referring to the Schiavo case, she did not have a living will.

I'm talking about state constitutional amendments which would make it far tougher for ANYONE (family, friends, hospitals, politicicans) to challenge the right to terminate artificial support as a patient dictates.

The religious right would go bonkers over amendments like this, it enshrines certain rights of privacy in state constitutions that they think should be "God's" or whomever... anyone but the individual.

[Silverhair]

7. I doubt they would go bonkers.

After all, if they would get that upset over it, it would not have been able to become legal in all 50 states.

I think the problem is in exactly where the definition of heroic medial procedures would be.

I am a born-again Christian and my church is fundamentalist, (I know, I am a bit of an odd-ball to be here. My politics are about on the 45L line.) so I know very well how some issues will and won't resonate in that community.

Most would see being kept alive by respirators and similar machines as heroic measures, but would be divided about the feeding tube. Many tend to see a feeding tube as being an extension of helping a disabled person eat.

There is also confusion in the public over comas and vegetative states. There was a woman last year that recovered from a 20 year coma. So many people see it (wrongly) as being possible for here to recover.

[ruggerson]

11. They went bonkers over the ERA remember?

And that was pretty darn innocuous. They screamed that it would mean co-ed public toilets, would lead to women being degraded, etc etc - a whole pack of lies. They would more than likely do the same with this. This would energize liberal/moderate/libertarian/privacy rights inclined individals to go to the polls and it would win overwhelmingly, if worded correctly. It would put the fundamentalists way out there on a branch of their own making. That's what you want to do with a wedge issue.

[Silverhair]

12. Completely different issue.

Since I go to a very fundamentalist church, and was raised in that denomination, am a Texan by birth and raising, and am old enough to have done volunteer for John F Kennedy's 1960 campaign, I think I know how most of them think.

They won't get upset over something like that.

You are wishing.

[ultraist]

13. Yes, we have state laws for living wills

We do not need to amend the Constitution. This issue also ties into Right to Privacy.

A Constitutional amdmt for this is overkill.

[ruggerson]

14. If you read my original post

I was talking about STATE constitutional amendments. State by state. Not a federal amendment.

[not systems]

10. The numbers are definitely right for exploitation. n/t