[brian]

In a more reasonable world, nurse Carla Sauer-Iyer's actions would be judged fairly, with no politics involved.

It shouldn't matter which side anyone was on back when Gov. Jeb Bush was trying to "save a life" by keeping a food tube in place in Terri Schiavo's abdomen.

That should be irrelevant. But this is the real world, so I doubt it can work that way.

Jeb, who doesn't normally get involved in hearings that determine whether nurses should lose their licenses, has stepped in to help nurse Sauer-Iyer, who was on Jeb's side in that intense public controversy about Schiavo.

I was on the other side. I think it was a mercy for all concerned when Terri Schiavo's body was allowed to die last year, after so many years of existence in what had been repeatedly diagnosed as a persistent vegetative state with no chance of recovery.

An autopsy confirmed that her brain was as hopelessly destroyed as her doctors believed, and probably more so. Even her eyes, which some claimed had lit up at the sight of her mother and in response to brightly colored balloons, had in fact been sightless because of the loss of the part of her brain that processes signals from the optic nerve.

Full Story: Governor weighs in to help Terri Schiavo's nurse [Sarasota Herald-Tribune,FL]

[Marie_LPN]

So after a complaint was filed by a woman who said the nurse's TV talk violated medical confidentiality laws, the state's Department of Health stepped in and is now going after the nurse's license.

Just because a woman has been diagnosed as being in a pesistent vegetative state, doesn't mean she shouldn't be afforded the same right of privacy of her medical condition as someoen who's not.

[ZASHAGALKA]

I'm normally a huge advocate of the right to a dignified death.

However, I do not believe the husband should have had the right to be her surrogate decision maker.

He only started claiming that she 'wanted to die' AFTER he was in a long-term relationship with someone else. Not being able to 'divorce' her, the only way to marry his new woman was in her death. IN addition, he got a huge settlement and wasn't concerned about her wishes while the money was afloat. It was only AFTER she was no longer good 'for a buck', that he suddenly (not so suddenly) 'remembered' that she wanted to die.

SIMPLY PUT, this man had a huge conflict of interest. And that conflict of interest played directly against the thoughts of those that ALSO had a reasonable insight into her wishes that WEREN'T so conflicted.

To me, this isn't a case about whether Terri had a right to die with dignity. It was a case of the conflicted interests of her decision maker.

In effect, since he was practically common-law re-married, her surrogate decision maker was her EX-HUSBAND. And, his new woman being in limbo almost certainly played into his decision-making.

I sure wouldn't want my Ex-wife deciding for me. In fact, I would only want someone making decisions for me that had only MY interests at heart.

I just don't see this as a case of generally denying someone the 'right to die'. I see it as a valid exception that should have been evaluated on its own merits.

~faith,
Timothy.

[WickedRedRN]

No matter where one stands on the issues of Terri Schiavo's case is not the case to be considered here. I agree with Marie, Terri's state did not negate her right to privacy. Sadly, her husband and parents and the government violated her privacy by going public with their ugly disputes. While, yes, I would want someone to stand up and speak for me if I was unable to, I have taken steps to assure that person has been appointed ahead of time.

The question here is should the NURSE have action against her license for breeching confidentiality? IMHO, she did cross the boundary by not only talking about Terri, but for talking with the media no less.

I hope her case is decided soley on the facts, and not the ugly ethical debate that has so polarized this case.

[kat911]

Strictly speaking on this case the nurse should not have addressed the patients condition in any way shape or form. If she wanted to discuss her opnions of the family she did have a right to do that, with the understanding she might face consequences for slander. Both acts were unprofessional.

After a patient I cared for died I was forced to testify in court about him and some sexual dysfunction. He confided in me and I felt I was betraying him in the court room. His greedy children had no respect for him or his privacy. What in heck did his sexual dysfunction have to do with his will and his ability to make decisions???? Luckily his amazing wife was backed up by the patient's oldest son, the only one who came and stayed to help her care for his father. *#$%^ dirt bags!

[PANurseRN1]

She violated HIPAA. All appropriate penalties should be applied.

[Geeg]

Did I see the word "affadavit' in there . If this nurse was compelled to give testimony by a court or a legal action, then there is justification. It seems like it was her own choice , though, to go on CNN.

[Roy Fokker]

Originally Posted by ZASHAGALKA

I just don't see this as a case of generally denying someone the 'right to die'. I see it as a valid exception that should have been evaluated on its own merits.

Yes, specifically desiring His Holiness the Governor to step in.

Pardon my sarcasm but I don't doubt for one New York minute that if the tables turned, Jeb wouldn't be sticking his nose in to save some poor harrassed nurse.

This is all about political mileage - this is after all the year 2006.


cheers,

[CHATSDALE]

does the governor have the right to interfere in a board hearing like this..they are there to weight the facts of the case nurse shuld not have jumped in for her 15 minutes sometimes it just pays to keep your mouth shut * can save you a lot of grief

i don't know of a state that has common-law divorce he had a legal right to make the decision in this case

[ZASHAGALKA]

Of course it's politics. If there wasn't a political angle, none of us would know who Terri Schiavo is!

And in Texas at least, the BNE is directly appointed by the Gov. The Gov stepping up to the plate would have a huge impact on decision making. After all, most of the board members directly owe the gov for his patronage.

Also, you don't offend the office that signs off on your budget. That's governmental politics 101.

~faith,
Timothy.