I agree... let's slow this thing WAY, WAY, down! (you hear that Florida Supremes?)
There is a great deal more info HERE: Professor Appointed to Probe Schiavo Case, regarding her 'Jeb Bush ordered' new Guardian Ad Litem appointment, and why Terri is not comatose, and not in 'permanant vegetative state', but is actually being murdered by her husband. - a MUST read!
Her doctor wrote:
Vocalizing when prone in P.T.[physical therapy, she] Occasionally will say "STOP" to nursing during procedures.
To: sweetliberty; EternalVigilance; floriduh voter; tutstar; Canticle_of_Deborah; JulieRNR21; ...
(((ping)))
To: FL_engineer
. Now the case is perhaps the most visible, bitterly contentious and exhaustively protracted right-to-die ...I'm not sure that "right-to-die" is the best way to charachterize this case.
3 posted on
11/01/2003 11:10:13 AM PST by
templar
To: FL_engineer
The law was "hurriedly enacted" because otherwise she would have been dead before anything could be done.
As for Christian conservatives, I don't think that's a bad company to be in.
As the old saying went, who would you want to run into in a dark alley at night? A youth gang, a bunch of muggers, or a group of "Christian conservatives"? I'll bet even most liberals would choose the last.
4 posted on
11/01/2003 11:20:47 AM PST by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: FL_engineer
"So the Legislature actually is trying to undo judicial action." Well, DUH!!!!! When the judiciary is completely out of control, somebody's got to do it!
5 posted on
11/01/2003 11:23:19 AM PST by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: FL_engineer
"*Those who are absolutely certain they know all the answers in this case simply are not acquainted with the complexity of the issues." Ain't it the truth? So maybe you be acquainting yourself with more of the facts instead spewing your ignorant opinion about the authority of the legislature or lack thereof?
"Playing God ain't no bed of roses."
Yeah, well, I guess you should know.
6 posted on
11/01/2003 11:28:15 AM PST by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: FL_engineer
State laws and courts tend to grant the spouse the authority to make life-and-death decisions. This contradicts the notion that Terri should be killed only in honor of her supposed wish.
The "right to die" is all about what the spouse wants now?
7 posted on
11/01/2003 11:31:35 AM PST by
Gelato
To: FL_engineer
The problem is in the first instance a family disagreement The problem is this, IMHO....to stop "extraordinary" measures requires written instructions from the patient.
Absent this, there needs to be a consensus opinion that faciliating death is what the patient would want.
Both the written instructions and consensus are missing in Terri's case.
How would anyone want the State to choose death over life under these legal conditions?
To: FL_engineer
Any husband who would kill my two cats and melt my wedding rings to make a nice pinky for himself (not to mention spending my lawsuit settlement on himself) shouldn't be given total control of my future!
DUH!!
15 posted on
11/01/2003 3:08:12 PM PST by
Humidston
(Two Words: TERM LIMITS)
To: FL_engineer
Playing God ain't no bed of roses. Leo Sandon is Distinguished Teaching Professor
Seems to me that a Distinguished Teaching Professor could learn to use better English.
BTW, have you noticed the keywords. There are a couple there that are mocking the Terri supporters. Such class, choosing to fight the fight behind a curtain!!
27 posted on
11/01/2003 9:28:39 PM PST by
trussell
(PRAYER WORKS!!)
To: FL_engineer
Apparently most physicians think successful rehabilitation is unlikely. I think the rehabilitation issue is a red herring. What I mean is that Terri has a right to life whether or not she can be "rehabilitated".
35 posted on
11/02/2003 8:51:34 PM PST by
Saundra Duffy
(For victory & freedom!!!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson