Since the question was asked on-list I'll answer it here with apologies to the people who are wearing out their delete keys. It's hard to anticipate all contingencies, however --
If the patient can speak for him or herself there is no issue. If the family agrees on what the wishes would be there is no issue. If there is disagreement, particularly disagreement vehement enough to wind up in court, or if the motives of the guardian are questioned, then the patient should be adequately represented, in other words have someone speak for them and them alone throughout the process. This advocate role cannot in my opinion be adequately performed by the presiding judge. I have never heard of any other court process where a party was represented by a judge who had to decide the case after hearing the other side, and I am astounded that this is legal. I also think the fact that this woman had three different guardians at various times is a red flag. Did they resign and if so why? If the patient were represented in court in the same way that a child is represented in court when there are proceedings about custody, I think I would consider the proceedings fair, at least fairer than this. I know the law is an imperfect process but this stinks. I hope that answers the question. Dana On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:57:58 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Dana, > > I'm writing off list because I'm still curious about your position and > I value your opinion. I do understand the horror of starving someone > to death and therefore the feeling that there has to be another way > because this way seems so wrong. I think that's your general > position. > > What I'm curious about, though, is how you'd suggest we solve this *as > a matter of policy*. As I said, if there is a better way, then we > have to find the policy that brings that way to fruition. To me there > are only a few alternatives in the case that the patient is > unconscious and their wishes aren't known: > > 1.) The gov't or a gov't agency always decides. > > 2.) The family decides in a specific order, but is always government > verified. That is, if the family agrees we check it out, if they > don't we check it out. > > 3.) We always let the family decide unless they disagree and then the > government decides. > > 4.) We always let the family decide unless they disagree and then the > decision is investigated. > > 5.) We let the family decide in a specific order and they are investigated. > > So my questions is what policy do you advocate and how does it apply > in this case? > > Thanks, > > gg > > PS - I need to know to save my Easter weekend :) > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151752 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
