Posted on 12/19/2007 5:00:27 AM PST by paulsy
The majority want a choice. The majority choose to live. The majority do not want to be denied basic care.
That's what I have been advocating - a choice. Families should be able to make the choice. Not the state.
Do you have a clue what torture is? Stop eating and drinking, and then tell us how “euphoric” it is. It’s real easy for some folks to believe it’s no big deal when someone else suffers.
Please don't put words in quotes when replying to me unless you are quoting my post. It implies words that are not mine.
A straw man argument shouldn't really surprise me, though. After emotional appeals fail, that's usually next.
ABC News says he’s still breathing. The respirator was removed at 4:30.
On FR, italics are used to indicate a previous poster’s words.
There is no straw man in the valid point I made. Slowly suffocating to death or dehydrating to death is most certainly torture. That’s just the truth, ugly as it is. If you don’t give any serious consideration to the victim, maybe you can pretend it’s not torture.
It makes it easier to deny his right to life if you pretend his life has no value to anyone, including himself.
It takes an awful lot of pretending to “justify” killing a vulnerable person. It takes words like “euphoria” and elimination of words like “torture.” It takes pretending that the victim has as little regard for his own life as his killers do. It takes a pile of lies so high you need a ski lift to reach the top.
On FR, italics are used to indicate a previous poster’s words.
Sometimes, but not always. I don't want any confusion about what anyone did or did not say.
There is no straw man in the valid point I made. Slowly suffocating to death or dehydrating to death is most certainly torture. That’s just the truth, ugly as it is. If you don’t give any serious consideration to the victim, maybe you can pretend it’s not torture.
Do you equate that with removing someone from a respirator? That is, after all, precisely what I was talking about.
It takes an awful lot of pretending to “justify” killing a vulnerable person. It takes words like “euphoria” and elimination of words like “torture.” It takes pretending that the victim has as little regard for his own life as his killers do. It takes a pile of lies so high you need a ski lift to reach the top.
So what do you make of my clear, legal instructions to my wife concerning treatment should I be in that position? Do I not have the moral right to insist that she take me off a ventilator, etc? Even a feeding tube?
Are you using the removal of a respirator as a euphemism? You do know it’s possible to remove a respirator without causing torture or death, right? When I talked about slowly suffocating to death, I was talking about slowly suffocating to death. I do not equate that with being properly weaned off a respirator.
I don’t know what situation you have outlined in your advance directive. I don’t know what it has to do with Paulo Melo’s situation.
Why can't we go back to the way it used to be? What's wrong with recognizing human nature and human rights? What's wrong with letting people live unless they decide not to? What's wrong with letting people choose for themselves, instead of others? What's wrong with the idea that people don't own each other, and can't decide to kill each other for no good reason?
The article said 20 specialists weighed in. With a severed spinal cord and 20 specialists saying the person won't recover -- it sounds like they have sought multiple opinions. Assuming sufficient verification has been there comes a point where keeping a person articially alive on life support is futile.
The state has the power. The hospitals and courts are an institution of the state and doctors as well as judges are licensed officers of the state.
Hopefully this family will get at least the small reprieve they have requested.
Prayers up for all involved.
The family is united in it's desire to keep him on life support, and there is no dispute about who (of the family members) has the legal right to speak for the afflicted person.
This is the government overriding the families will.
Never mind the reasoning behind the statement. I hope you like it hot.
Paulo Melo, 29, has been on life support at Royal Darwin Hospital after his spinal cord was severed and he sustained head injuries in a car crash two weeks ago.
His family was told earlier this week that life support should be removed after more than 20 specialists agreed he would not recover.
Yeah, he has a brain injury. Why should that limit his rights?
The state owns you, apparently.
That is appalling! 2 weeks is most likely not enough time for him to be properly evaluated.
I am otherwise speechless.
the poster writes:
"Paulo Melo, 29, has been in a coma at the Royal Darwin Hospital for two weeks, after severing his spinal cord in a car crash."
the details have been paraphrased to the extent they bear little resemblance to the original. And that's no accident.
THE FACTS: His family was told earlier this week that life support should be removed after more than 20 specialists agreed he would not recover.
why do you feel you need forgiveness? Is it because you very well know you misrepresented the article?
Sounds like what the Democraps in this country envision.
Orwellian nightmare.
It's not what Ds envision. It is what is. While the state hasn't gone so far as the Nazis to count citizens as assets, quadrupling the net worth of their country, the basics haven't changed.
I was thinking of a nationalized health care system...as the worst case scenario for losing one’s humanity to the “experts”-—so it’s not here yet..but getting closer.
Yes the Nazis and the Soviets inflicted these horrors —not sure of you sense of counting humans as “assets”...they are assets intrinsically.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.