The Case

Posted by Edward R Murrow on Friday, February 16, 2007

Good evening to all...
This is your reporter, Edward R. Murrow, back for one final grand assignment...the Court of All Time's deliberation on this vital case, one that explores the authority of doctors and hospitals, questions of life and death, and issues of personal ethics and societal morality. These are just the kind of issues I used to love reporting on back in the glory days of CBS. Rest assured that I'll be out there once more, microphone in hand, asking the tough questions. I look forward to hearing from all of you.
Just so you know that my skills as an investigative journalist are still razor-sharp, I have unearthed a copy of the description of the case, leaked to me by a source close to the Chief Magistrate. While the rest of the world awaits this news, I report it here for the first time anywhere:

Jill Carson, a 50 year-old Houston resident, has brought an unusual case to the Court of All time. Ms. Carson's 54-year-old sister, Penny Stark, died in a Houston hospital this year after her family clashed with hospital officials over whether to keep her alive. Ms. Stark, who had open-heart surgery and was on a ventilator, told her family several times she wanted to live as long as her brain functioned, Ms. Carson said. A few weeks after Ms. Stark's surgery, the hospital made a decision to discontinue life support, under Texas Advance Directives law, which allows hospitals to stop life-sustaining treatment with 10 days' notice for patients whose cases are deemed futile.

In accordance with the law, the hospital searched for another facility that would accept Ms. Stark as a transfer patient. However, the only facility they were able to find was in Portland, Oregon. The law requires the patient to carry the burden of all expenses related to the transfer, and since Ms. Stark's insurance would not pay for treatment that was not requested by her physician, Ms. Carson agreed to take on the considerable costs. However, during the transfer, Ms. Stark experienced cardiac arrest and died.

Ms. Stark did not leave a "living will" or other written documentation of her wishes.

Under the current law, a doctor may refuse to honor the wishes of the patient or the patient's family to continue life-sustaining treatment. That decision is subject to review by a hospital medical ethics committee. The patient and family get 48 hours' notice of the meeting. If the committee agrees that further treatment is inappropriate, the patient can seek a transfer. But the original hospital can stop life support after the 10th day.

Ms. Carson sued the hospital, arguing that her sister would still be alive if the hospital had not decided to end treatment. But after her case was rejected by a state district court, she decided to bring the case to the Court of All time.

Read well and consider the issues, good friends. We will begin the trial shortly--in the meantime, please join the conversations in the great hall.

How the Hearing will be judged

Posted by Barbara Jordan on Saturday, March 03, 2007

Guests of the Alhambra, allow me to introduce myself. I am Barbara Jordan of the United States of America, and I am the Chief Magistrate of the Court of All Time.

I trust that you have been enjoying the conversation so far, and you may continue to socialize with each other, but it is time to move on to the real reason you are all gathered here today. The hearing -- or "trial," if you will -- has begun in the courtroom. I gather that the basic facts of the case have already been leaked to the press, but I urge you nevertheless to read the hearing description carefully.

There are a few things you need to know.

The hearing will be decided by a panel of 17 justices, who you will find listed in the courtroom. Each justice will rule either "yes" (supporting the defendant's appeal), or "no" (dismissing that appeal). When ruling, justices must explain the basis for their decisions and recommend an appropriate course of action. A simple majority of nine justices is required to decide the hearing one way or another, and I will determine any necessary penalties or remedies, based on the justices' opinions.

However, justices will not come to these conclusions in isolation. In order to rule, each justice needs at least five "votes of confidence" from other guests. As you continue your activity here at the Alhambra (especially in the Great Hall and the Courtroom), you will gradually acquire a "stash" of votes. You can then give votes from your stash to one or more of the justices. Needless to say, you should give your votes to justices who you believe will rule wisely, and who you think share your views. Therefore, you should listen carefully to all the justices and talk with them extensively before you give out your votes of confidence. In turn, the justices will be listening carefully to your views and suggestions.

In the coming days, the justices will each post a "legal philosophy," which you may read by following a link next to each name in the "view justices" area of the courtroom. Use these as starting points for understanding the justices' views.

Each of you is encouraged to respond to requests for testimony which will be posted in the Courtroom Proceedings area. Those with relevant documents or pictures may also present them by submitting a "presentation of evidence."

I urge each of you to consider all aspects of this case carefully, and express your views clearly. To the justices, listen well, and rule wisely.