Help Wanted: Angel of Death - Apply Within

I'll burn in liberal Hell for saying this, but I agree with Justice Scalia (oh, the -pain-!) that there are many things best left to legislatures. Defining the substance and process involved in these decisions are a great example.

For example, in a recent op-ed, Charles Krauthammer holds that says a court should be able to turn custody over to any first-degree relative willing to keep a vegged-out patient alive. Fine. But that means you have to have one.

Leroy, my only child, will have no siblings. Under the Krauthammer view, Leroy would be out of supposedly beneficial options if either we die before he marries or he dies and just one of us parents is left to decide. Given the increasing number of people who come from smaller families these days and who marry later or not at all, this policy would favor Mormons and Catholics over everybody else.

Also, who pays? If hubby says "pull" but son wants to take over, does the son then assume legal responsibility for the hospice care? What if there's a hefty settlement or judgment sitting in the bank as a result of the accident which left wife as a veg? Does son assume that money to pay the bills? Or does hubby keep it, for "loss of consortium" and all the other stuff he can recover over? If the state has to pay the bill, can it collect from hubby even though the circumstances creating the financial liability are over his clear objections?

These are the kind of things legislatures need to figure out and apply. Courts can't, and don't, which is why the parents aren't gettin' any love at the docket over this. As a matter of fact, the more controversial this becomes, the -less- likely any court will intervene, for fear of pre-empting what should be a political discussion among the law-making agencies of the state.

There really isn't much at issue here for a court to work with. Either the Florida law was properly applied, or there is a Constitutional bar to anyone making that kind of decision for anyone else. Or for themselves, perhaps, through a health care directive or other instrument. If the first, then it's clearly been reviewed inside and out. If the latter, it's too sweeping a consequence for a court to take it on, preferring to let the legislative process work it out all.

And yes, it's just too funny for words to see all these conservative activists screaming for a level of "judicial activism" they scream about when liberals supposedly do it.