Life and Death part I

I haven't really discussed the Florida Coma case at all, but developments yesterday warrant some mention. First of all, I have no idea where I stand personally on these issues, short of saying that there will not be a good outcome not matter what here. There are so many issues it makes it difficult to wade through.

Right to Die
This, technically, is an right to die case. The husband is claiming the wife said she doesn't want to live that way, but he only has his word that she said it. I am generally in favor of people being able to state 'no artificially means' in medically keeping someone alive. Assuming they're competent to make that choice. Certainly, whatever may have been said before, the woman is no longer in any position to be able to advocate what he wishes are. So , while this case may be framed as a right to die case, in reality it is about something else.

Marriage Rights VS Parental Rights
I think this is where the crux of the conflict resides. Ultimately, it is the parents wish to keep her alive VS the husband's wish to end her life. As there is no documentation as to her wishes, beyond her husbands claim, the court needs to decide who gets to speak for her. Does her marriage negate the family's ability There needs to be some medical belief that she will not recover from her current state, or this issue would never have initially been decided for the husband. I'm not saying there's no chance at all of recovery - strange things happen all the time, but that there doesn't seem to be a reasonable chance of that occurring.

I initially thought that a good solution is just to release the husband of any responsibility and turn care over to her parents. Which is a good solution, though it assumes that the husband is only looking out for his best interest. It is possible that his motivation is that he doesn't want someone he loves, and who specifically stated she didn't want to live in this state, to live out her life in a vegetative state.

Assisted Suicide
This is a little different, from my line of reasoning, than the right to die. Why? Because in Florida, there is a ban on assisted suicide. That's why this woman was being starved to death. No 'artificial means', is about assisting someone in living, not dying. Usually, this is breathing machines and the like. In this case, however, most of her biological functions are working. She's just no able to feed herself. So, ending artificial means is simply stopping her food supply - which means starving her to death (a process which can take up to 2 weeks). In Florida, doctors can't help this process along with drugs.

Legislators
This is the only area of the case where I have a strong opinion. The Florida legislature should not have intervened. It's always a bad idea for legislation to be drafted for a single case, which is what happened here. The gave the governor a 15 day window to issue a stay. His ability to issue such stays ends after 15 days, though any stays continue to exist as long as he wishes. The law itself, from my non-legal background, seems to be reasonably written.

However, that doesn't mean it's a good law.