Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance

i think its wrong for the government to step in, but i also think that the family should let go.

thats why my will will have something about making sure i dont stay on life support. i dont want to be a vegetable.

most families only think of themselves and not whats best for the person on life support. but thats understandable, its a hard thing to do.


7 posted on 12/19/2007 5:11:02 AM PST by abstracTT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: abstracTT; The Spirit Of Allegiance; 8mmMauser; BykrBayb; floriduh voter; bjs1779
i think its wrong for the government to step in, but i also think that the family should let go.

thats why my will will have something about making sure i dont stay on life support. i dont want to be a vegetable.

Where does it say that this man is a "vegetable"? In my experience, this terms seems to be a favorite of those who support killing off anyone who doesn't quite meet their standards of what living should "look like."

12 posted on 12/19/2007 5:17:00 AM PST by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT
thats why my will will have something about making sure i dont stay on life support. i dont want to be a vegetable.

You better make sure you address each and every situation or they'll be removing your feeding tube causing a long and horrible death.

15 posted on 12/19/2007 5:39:40 AM PST by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT

I’m just the opposite. I want to live at all costs. I don’t want anyone needing my heart so that they’ll rule me “brain dead” and then take me off life support so that they can give my organs to someone else.

I only have 1 life and I want to have it last as long as possible. I respect your choice and it’s smart to have that in a living will. But the issue we are starting to face (especially with gov’t health care) is that the courts/gov’t will decide if you get to live and will default to you dying (and in this case it appears it doesn’t matter what your wishes are). We should always error on the side of life.


19 posted on 12/19/2007 6:45:27 AM PST by for-q-clinton (If at first you don't succeed keep on sucking until you do succeed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT; wagglebee; bjs1779; BykrBayb

I believe you mean well, and it appears you are young and fairly new at this topic. You may want to consider a few points before your words cause people to jump down your throat. As in Texas with the Futile Care law, and in Florida and many other places, the government is a cluster of little gods deciding who should live and who shall die, and whether their quality of life stands up to arbitrary standards. They use terms to ease the thought process of casual readers, and to lull them into a state of comfort.

In this case, they have already convinced you they have the right to remove life support. Sounds warm and fuzzy, but in Terri Schiavo’s case, these gods judged that food and water is life support, just like your noontime sandwich. Then they can say you are a vegetable PVS and most will believe it, as in Terri who was far from that state. And if you are laying there on the table, and have some useful or valuable parts and giblets, well, you may find they have a new term for you, brain dead, and let the harvest begin. No sedatives or aspirins, don’t you know, as that might upset the purity of the heart you are about to donate.

Pro life encompasses that, just like confronting abortion and other inroads of malicious leaders to control the life of individuals. It is a conservative position central to philosophy of FreeRepublic. Read up a bit.

Just sayin...


21 posted on 12/19/2007 7:01:30 AM PST by 8mmMauser (Jezu ufam tobie...Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT
i think its wrong for the government to step in, but i also think that the family should let go.

I have left very specific instructions for my family about when they should remove life support, and when they shouldn't. This situation, as the facts have been reported, doesn't even come close to approaching my own standards for removing my own life support - especially from a verification standpoint. I have seen too many doctors make the easy assumptions; my family knows enough to pay for a second opinion from far outside the sphere of influence of the care facility where I may be.
23 posted on 12/19/2007 7:43:48 AM PST by beezdotcom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT
i also think that the family should let go,

After two weeks???? It would be a different story if he were declared brain dead, but just "the doctors don't think he will recover" is not nearly enough (not that I think anything short of that could be) for the court to order removal from life support.

At the end of September my cousin suffered a massive stroke during surgery and the doctors didn't expect her to survive. After about two weeks they told my aunt & uncle that she would go into cardiac arrest from the brain swelling and they wanted them to sign a DNR. They refused.

It is now almost 3 months later. In that time she has been weaned from a respirator, has partial movent in her limbs and just last week she spoke for the first time since the stroke.

Doctors are not God and two weeks is a ridiculously short period of time to decide to give up hope.

marinamuffy

26 posted on 12/19/2007 8:41:32 AM PST by marinamuffy ("..pacifism ensures that cruelty will prevail on earth." - Dennis Prager/ www.gohunter08.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT

“but i also think that the family should let go.”

maybe, but it’s now our choice - certainly shouldn’t be the Australian government’s choice, in collusion with the attending (government) doctors.

also, i listened to the family on the radio, after the court hearing, and they made a pretty good case, not presented in the written articles, of doctors they’d talked to during the afternoon who said there was a chance of recovery - NEUROLOGISTS rather than an anesthesiologist as cited by the “prosecuting” doctors and relied upon as “evidence of futility” by the court here.

Regardless, it shouldn’t even be considered by a government.


37 posted on 12/19/2007 9:20:42 AM PST by paulsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: abstracTT
i think its wrong for the government to step in, but i also think that the family should let go.

Its been only two weeks! you have to be kidding... If it were your kid would 2 weeks be enough?

thats why my will will have something about making sure i dont stay on life support. i dont want to be a vegetable.

I tell my wife to do whats right in her mind, to be prayerful and honest with herself. She tells me the same.

most families only think of themselves and not whats best for the person on life support. but thats understandable, its a hard thing to do.

Lets assume the kid is a turnip... Is it really still 'best' to kill him? how is it best for the kid to have his life support taken away?

118 posted on 12/20/2007 8:37:44 AM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson