Father of Potential Euthanasia Victim Lauren Richardson Asks Gov for Help

Life News ^ | 5/7/08 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Dover, DE (LifeNews.com) -- The family of Lauren Richardson continues to press her case and is now calling on the governor of Delaware for help to save her life. Richardson has become the next Terri Schiavo as her parents engage in a massive legal and philosophical debate about whether she should live or die.

Richardson is a 23-year-old woman who overdosed on heroin in August 2006 while she was three months pregnant with a baby girl.

Doctors kept Lauren on life support until she delivered her baby in February 2007. Shortly thereafter, her parents began a fight that is reminiscent of the battle over Terri's life and death.

Edith Towers, Lauren's mother, wants to remove her feeding tube and starve and dehydrate her to death in the same manner that Michael Schiavo subjected Terri.

On the other side is Randy Richardson, Lauren's father, who is fighting to save her life and wants to be appointed as her guardian to ensure she receives appropriate medical care and treatment.

Richardson recently said the fight to save Lauren continues and that he is "totally committed to a path that includes rehabilitative treatment and therapy with the hope that Lauren can recover significantly from her disability."

He hope that, one day, Lauren may be able to "participate in the raising of her daughter that she gave birth to while in her current condition."

Randy Richardson says, "Lauren’s mother, after convincing one Delaware judge to declare that she should be Lauren’s guardian, remains resolute in her assertion that Lauren is vegetative and cannot recover."

"Her mother has withheld authorization for any rehabilitative medical treatment and therapy for Lauren, and intends to have Lauren’s feeding tube halted" if his effort sot save her fail.

"We cannot understand her reasoning in refusing a path of hope, healing, and restoration for Lauren, and insisting on causing her death by withholding food and water from her," he added.

"The issue in Lauren’s case is the eternal truth that all people, no matter what their medical condition, bear the image of God and deserve basic care and an opportunity to be restored to health," he said.

Richardson's family is calling on Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner to intervene and save Lauren from an expected court order dictating her euthanasia death.

As in the Terri Schiavo case, physicians have been quick to label Lauren as having a persistent vegetative state -- something Terri's family called dehumanizing and medically inaccurate as patients have recovered from it.

Noted attorney and author has written about Lauren's case and he says he viewed a video Richardson's father released and he says she seems reactive particularly when her father attempts to interact with her.

"Whether she is conscious or not is irrelevant to her equal moral worth as a human being," Smith adds.

"The fight in this case is over whether she lives as a profoundly disabled woman or is made to die slowly over two weeks by dehydration--as Terri Schiavo did," Smith explained. "If we did that to a dog, we would go to jail. Do it to a disabled woman who needs a feeding tube and it is called medical ethics."

ACTION: Contact Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner at governor.minner@state.de.us and ask her to help Randy Richardson save his daughter's life.

Related web sites:
Life for Lauren - http://www.lifeforlauren.org

Dover, DE (LifeNews.com) -- The family of Lauren Richardson continues to press her case and is now calling on the governor of Delaware for help to save her life. Richardson has become the next Terri Schiavo as her parents engage in a massive legal and philosophical debate about whether she should live or die.

Richardson is a 23-year-old woman who overdosed on heroin in August 2006 while she was three months pregnant with a baby girl.

Doctors kept Lauren on life support until she delivered her baby in February 2007. Shortly thereafter, her parents began a fight that is reminiscent of the battle over Terri's life and death.

Edith Towers, Lauren's mother, wants to remove her feeding tube and starve and dehydrate her to death in the same manner that Michael Schiavo subjected Terri.

On the other side is Randy Richardson, Lauren's father, who is fighting to save her life and wants to be appointed as her guardian to ensure she receives appropriate medical care and treatment.

Richardson recently said the fight to save Lauren continues and that he is "totally committed to a path that includes rehabilitative treatment and therapy with the hope that Lauren can recover significantly from her disability."

He hope that, one day, Lauren may be able to "participate in the raising of her daughter that she gave birth to while in her current condition."

Randy Richardson says, "Lauren’s mother, after convincing one Delaware judge to declare that she should be Lauren’s guardian, remains resolute in her assertion that Lauren is vegetative and cannot recover."

"Her mother has withheld authorization for any rehabilitative medical treatment and therapy for Lauren, and intends to have Lauren’s feeding tube halted" if his effort sot save her fail.

"We cannot understand her reasoning in refusing a path of hope, healing, and restoration for Lauren, and insisting on causing her death by withholding food and water from her," he added.

"The issue in Lauren’s case is the eternal truth that all people, no matter what their medical condition, bear the image of God and deserve basic care and an opportunity to be restored to health," he said.

Richardson's family is calling on Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner to intervene and save Lauren from an expected court order dictating her euthanasia death.

As in the Terri Schiavo case, physicians have been quick to label Lauren as having a persistent vegetative state -- something Terri's family called dehumanizing and medically inaccurate as patients have recovered from it.

Noted attorney and author has written about Lauren's case and he says he viewed a video Richardson's father released and he says she seems reactive particularly when her father attempts to interact with her.

"Whether she is conscious or not is irrelevant to her equal moral worth as a human being," Smith adds.

"The fight in this case is over whether she lives as a profoundly disabled woman or is made to die slowly over two weeks by dehydration--as Terri Schiavo did," Smith explained. "If we did that to a dog, we would go to jail. Do it to a disabled woman who needs a feeding tube and it is called medical ethics."

ACTION: Contact Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner at governor.minner@state.de.us and ask her to help Randy Richardson save his daughter's life.

Related web sites:
Life for Lauren - http://www.lifeforlauren.org

[wagglebee]

"Whether she is conscious or not is irrelevant to her equal moral worth as a human being," Smith adds.

Exactly!

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

[wagglebee]

Ping

[Dante3]

bttt

[Pyro7480]

Delmarva ping!

I doubt Ruth Ann is going to do jack about this.

[mtbopfuyn]

I don’t recall the constitution stating we have the right to death.

[wagglebee]

I recall the Bill of Rights SPECIFICALLY stating that to put someone to death there MUST be a grand jury indictment and the condemned MUST be convicted by a jury.

[kingattax]

PING

[dschapin]

I don’t know how much good it will do but I just sent an email. Hopefully lots more people will do the same.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Unfortunately we don’t have unlimited resources. And as taxpayer, IMO if we are going to and extra $100,000 a year on medical care I would rather have it spent to (for example) improve the care of young men and women living with the effects of brain injuries sustained in Iraq:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/national/22wounded.html

than on life support from someone in a vegetative state as a result of a heroin overdose.

[wagglebee]

While you certainly have the right to your opinion, your facts are not only erroneous they are irrelevant.

The cost of a feeding tube is only about $30,000 per year (and much less if the family undergoes some basic medical training) and, while some sacrifices will likely be necessary, this is well within the financial means of many families. Lauren’s care IS NOT being paid for by the state and since neither parent has indicated that finances are a concern we must presume that this is not an issue.

[StAnDeliver]

Fortunately, you don’t get that call, and I’ll ignore your strawman (NYT? Are you serious, noob?).

[M. Dodge Thomas]

$30,000 a year is an extremely optimistic estimate of the cost of home care for an adult in a PVS. Such individuals need much more than a feeding tube, they are subject to a wide variety of problems, which is why even with excellent care their 5 year survival rate is less than 10%.

"The costs of caring for patients in a persistent vegetative state are difficult to estimate. The cost of hospital care for the first three months is estimated to be $149,200. The estimated cost of long-term care in a skilled nursing facility ranges from approximately $350 per day ($126,000 per year) to approximately $500 per day ($180,000 per year)124. For children in a persistent vegetative state, the estimated annual cost of care at home is $129,000 (±$51,000) for the first year and $97,000 for subsequent years..."

And this does not count the ecconomic costs of removing adult family members from the labor force to act as unpaid caregivers, which is often considerate - and not only in terms of immediate lost wages but in terms of future earnings, contributions to SS and retirement savings and the like.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1366161/posts

[Taylor42]

How many of you would want to remain in such a devestated state? Do you really see it as being better than moving on?

No thanks.

You're free to choose for yourself and family, but don't choose for me or mine.

[taraytarah]

"Her mother has withheld authorization for any rehabilitative medical treatment and therapy for Lauren..."

"How many of you would want to remain in such a devestated state? Do you really see it as being better than moving on?"

Obviously Lauren wouldn't want to either, and that's why her dad wants to try various medical approaches and therapies to help improve her condition. It is truly amazing what healing can occur in a life-promoting atmosphere.

Mom started fighting rehabilitation after the birth of the baby. My bet is Mom is content raising her grandchild and doesn't want any "complications." (To the extend that she would dehydrate her own daughter.) Pity that we live in a society where those of us that become "inconvenient," can be so easily, "medically" disposed of.

[kitkat]

BUMP

[Sun]

“I don’t know how much good it will do but I just sent an email. Hopefully lots more people will do the same.”

Good idea.

[Sun]

There was a story about Lauren in “The Wanderer,” one of the country’s oldest Catholic newspapers, I believe, and I was happy to see that the word is getting out more.

[dschapin]

I imagine that the permanently disabled are a drain on our economy too. Do you want us to kill them too Herr Hitler. /s

[mbj]

I'm curious: exactly how much money is your life worth, Mr. Thomas?

I'm not enthusiastic about drug abusers being rewarded, but in my view this is at least partly about her father's choice. I thank my God that none of my children have gone down that path, but should it ever happen does that negate my right to care for them and to make choices about their care?

I support our troops, but in this country we really don't have to make a choice between the two: we can afford both - especially if we were to divert money from state-subsidized abortions and other iniquity.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I imagine that the permanently disabled are a drain on our economy too. Do you want us to kill them too Herr Hitler

As noted in my comments above, I prefer spending money on (for example) on the conscious disabled to spending it on people in a PVS.

As a society we have finite resources, and demands for medical care that exceeds them. We make choices. As Medical care - especially at the end of life - becomes more and more expensive (Medicare spends more than more than a quarter of its annual budget on care for those in their last year of life, 80% of that on people who are clearly dying)we will have to make harder and harder choices. Defining these as crimes because we cannot do everything is not helpful.

-----and

BTW.... my wife's Jewish, I spent five years doing the day to day scut work of elder-care for my in-laws, and you had best hope you never have the misfortune to call me a Nazi from withing arm's length instead of from the anonymous safety of a PC screen.

[dschapin]

Fair enough. It just really bothers me when people try to measure the value of lives in monetary terms. I probably shouldn’t have called you a NAZI but the ability to coldly measure the value of life in dollars and cents makes me think of NAZI Germany. I really don’t want to see that sort of amoral pragmatic thinking come to the United States.

[Caramelgal]

How many of you would want to remain in such a devestated state? Do you really see it as being better than moving on?

I would also ask how many of you have every had a family member languish in long term care for years in a vegetative state and kept artificially alive against the patient’s and family’s expressed wishes for end of life care and dying by very slow degrees over many years?

Believe me when I say it’s not pretty seeing someone kept alive by a feeding tube.

My mother-in-law was in poor health for many years. She often expressed to me and my husband how much pain she was in and how tired she was and how much she just “wanted to go home” and be with her mother and father and brothers in heaven with God.

She was already in a nursing home after having suffered some small strokes and was too disabled to be cared for at home, when she pretty much refused to eat any more although at the time she was still very lucid, aware of her surroundings and verbally communicative. The nursing home doctor said we should put her on a feeding tube and she and we disagreed. We tried to convince her to eat but it was a battle. But she was a very strong willed woman and knew that her time on this Earth was coming near its end. But when she suffered a massive stroke and was no longer able to communicate or feed herself; at first we were presented with the option of whether or not to put her on a feeding tube and we said no. But the doctors then recanted that it was our or her choice citing that it would be cruel and unethical not to do so and cited their legal and ethical responsibly. (She did not have Advanced Directives and we only had a limited power of attorney and only over financial matters).

So they put her on a feeding tube anyway without consulting her family.

And she stayed in a vegetative state for the next four years without any hope for recovering higher brain function or awareness; at first not getting any better but then not getting any worse. But as weeks and months went by, and her and our finances where exhausted, she went on Medicaid. That meant we, her family, had no choice what nursing home she was placed in – i.e. if she had to be transferred from the nursing home to a hospital because of infections from the feeding tube or bed sores or pneumonia (which happened many times) and was in the hospital for more than three days, she would loose her bed at the nursing facility she had come from and was placed in the first facility that had the first available bed. We, her family had no say where she was placed unless we could pony up the full cost of advanced nursing care at a facility of our choosing. We often paid out of pocket, the cost of the nursing home care that she was not using because she was in a hospital just to keep the bed available in a nursing home we approved of. But we could only do so much and it pretty much bankrupted us.

Some of the “facilities” she was placed in over the four years she was in a vegetative state were better than others – some were adequate and some where “Hell Holes”.

Although she was totally unresponsive, I still visited with her several times a week, often doing her soiled laundry myself because the nursing home was not doing a very good job. I would visit at random times on random days and I’m sure I was a real thorn in the side of the administration of several nursing homes as I was a tireless advocate for her care. Although she was still technically “alive” in that her brain still functioned on a basic rudimentary level as to keep her respiration and heartbeat and basic organ functions still going, we saw no spark of life left in her and the only thing keeping her body alive was the feeding tube, a catheter and some very basic care like keeping her clean and turning her as to prevent bed sores.

One day we got a phone call from the last nursing facility that her heart had stopped and since we did manage to get a DNR order in place, she was not resuscitated and died. We were sad at her passing but relived as we believed that the person we knew and loved had left this mortal plane many years earlier.

As she spent the last few years of her so called “life” drawn up in a ridged fetal position, when her body was transferred to a funeral home for burial, the mortician told us there was no way to lay her out in a coffin with out literally breaking her bones and joints in order to do so.

And thankfully this was the very last indignity she ever had to suffer.

I am defiantly pro-life and erring on the side of life, but just because recent advances in medical science can keep a body alive, I believe that it isn’t always the ethical, moral and responsible thing to do so.

[Gabz]

DelMarVa PING

Pyro7480 says: I doubt Ruth Ann is going to do jack about this.

Alas, I sadly agree. I do not know what happened, but the Ruth Ann Minner of today is not the same woman I first met 25 years ago when she was a State Senator from Milford. There once was a time I considered her a friend.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I'm curious: exactly how much money is your life worth, Mr. Thomas?

IMO, a lifetime cap of around 250K for public provision of non-palliative medical care would be reasonable, with only palliative care provided when life expectancy was less than 12 months.

I support our troops, but in this country we really don't have to make a choice between the two: we can afford both...

I take it you don't spend much time in VA hospitals.

- especially if we were to divert money from state-subsidized abortions and other iniquity.

The state and federal governments spent $89 million to fund 177,000 abortion procedures for low-income women in FY 2006... a drop in the bucket in terms of US health care spending. Abortions provided to low-income women saved many times their cost in reduced future health care spending. Moral arguments aside, eliminating abortion would have little effect on the availability of health care.

----- Perhaps you think me a cold hearted bastard.

Well, I'm equally frustrated by people who argue for unlimited public spending for people in a PVS - most of whom will be dead in five years - when we don't provide universal pre-natal nutrition and care for people who will likely be alive and conscious for the next 75 years. Or that 85 year old men should receive $75,000 cardiac surgery at the same time we underfund care for 22 year olds returning from Iraq - where an understrength military is sending troops already subjected to concussive brain damage back out into the field despite the fact that we *know* that repeat concussions are much more dangerous than the first injury alone.

These strike me as deeply stupid choices, and the situation is made worse when people refuse to admit that we are even making choices.

[BykrBayb]

Quit defending the Nazis. They engaged in the barbaric practice of exterminating disabled people. I hate Holocaust deniers. Here, read something, and try to learn a little bit along the way. Dr Robert Jay Lifton ~ THE NAZI DOCTORS: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide ©

[BykrBayb]

I'm sure you'd like to believe you're having an original thought, but it's been expressed before.

"This person suffering from hereditary
defects costs the people 60,000
Reichmarks during his lifetime. People,
that is your money. Read 'New People'."

[linn37]

This is why you need to make your wishes known to your family members. What if she would not want to live like that? Would you still fight to keep her alive?

[8mmMauser]

Pinged from Terri Dailies

8mm

[wagglebee]

You seem to have missed the point. A person with a feeding tube DOES NOT need to be in a nursing home. Lauren is able to sit up, she IS NOT bedridden.

Additonally, the $149K for the “first three months” has ALREADY been spent.

However, the FACT remains that YOU are attempting to create an issue that DOES NOT EXIST. There has been no indication from either of Lauren’s parents that finances are a concern. There is no indication that she has received a penny of taxpayer money. So, why do you continue this line of reasoning. It seems, and I hope I’m wrong, that your attitude is that the moment ANY person reaches a point in life where the cost to keep them alive exceeds some arbitrary threshold they should be killed. This policy has been tried before, and the outcome horrified the entire civilized world.

[wagglebee]

As a society we have finite resources, and demands for medical care that exceeds them. We make choices.

Do we? Every few years or so there is a mining disaster in this country. The MOMENT that happens, EVERY necessary resource is made available by federal, state and local governments to save the trapped miners. Millions of dollars are spent to save a handful of people. Sometimes it is successful, but some generally die. Should we, as a society, decide to stop doing this? If the mine owner doesn't have the resources or money should we just say, "too bad"?

This is the United States of America, if ANY nation in the history of the world has anything approaching infinite resourses, we do. This is not some third-world, despot-ridden hellhole, why should we act as if it is? Demand for medical care DOES NOT exceed supply, nor has it ever.

But again, the point is that YOU are making this into a public policy debate when there has been no evidence that any public funds ever have or ever will be necessary.

[wagglebee]

I would also ask how many of you have every had a family member languish in long term care for years in a vegetative state and kept artificially alive against the patient’s and family’s expressed wishes for end of life care and dying by very slow degrees over many years?

What are you talking about? Since when is food and water "artificial life support"? There is NO EVIDENCE that Lauren has ever expressed a desire to be killed and your contention that she is dying in "slow degrees" is FALSE.

[8mmMauser]

>>I am defiantly pro-life and erring on the side of life, but...

Couldn't help but notice your post. You should learn more about the plight of Lauren Richardson before such comments.

First, yes, we have been in that predicament, for twenty six years with a child many would say was PVS, and yet he lead a happy loving life, severely retarded and no way would we give him up. We are pro-life with no buts.

Second, Lauren is not that bad off. Check my Terri Dailies link above and watch the video. She has a loving father, and a team who want to kill her.

I understand what you went through, as we have too, and we never wanted our doctors to keep our son alive through bizarre new technology just to keep some cells alive. We would never allow doctors to snuff our son either. Lauren is alive and has potential! Let Lauren Live!

8mm

[wagglebee]

Maybe be it’s me; however, usually somebody says, “I’m pro-life, but,” it turns out that they are pretty much okay with killing any person for any reason. It’s the same as saying abortions should be “safe and legal and rare.”

[Abby4116]

IF a feeding tube had never been inserted, and if hydration HAD not been in place, then it would be a natural death. To remove the feeding tube and hydration makes it murder by state, plain and simple. The mother is asking the court to allow the murder of her daughter, just as Michael Schiavo did to Terri.

Anyone ever wonder why Judge Greer felt it necessary to order that no one try to feed Terri by mouth, not to give her water?

[Dante3]

Good point.

[wagglebee]

Anyone ever wonder why Judge Greer felt it necessary to order that no one try to feed Terri by mouth, not to give her water?

The same reason he refused to allow a swallow test. His mind was made up, Terri was going to die regardless of her condition.

[floriduh voter]

LAUREN RICHARDSON is on youtube and she's not languishing (definition please). She's alert and aware and wake up, creeper freepers, you are projecting your fears on someone you don't even know.

This is essentially a committee of strangers getting to decide who lives and who dies.

Let Lauren Live! Who are you freeper creepers to judge her but if you can't help yourself,visit youtube and see Lauren's a living, breathing person!

[Dustbunny]

What a terribly sad situation. Mother wants her dead and the father wants her alive is what it all amounts to.

What of the baby? Did she survive? Who is raising her? Does she have any disabilities because of her mother's overdose?

[wagglebee]

The baby is doing fine, Lauren’s mother has custody and WILL NOT take the baby to see her.

The overdose was very early in the pregnancy and there were no adverse affects (heroin, especially in the first trimester generally doesn’t harm the fetus like alcohol or cocaine).

[Caramelgal]

What are you talking about? Since when is food and water "artificial life support"?

A feeding tube is “artificial” in the sense that a feeding tube is medical procedure where in a tube is inserted directly into the stomach of a patient who is unable take food and water orally and nutrients are artificially forced into the patient. This technology was not available until the late 1800’s and only perfected enough in the last 25 years to make it a viable course of treatment to sustain life for patients who cannot take nutrients otherwise.

Feeding tubes definitely have a place in sustaining life just as ventilators and other means of artificial life support do and I’m not against their use when the patient has any reasonable or even remote chance of recovery or of recovering any quality of life or one who has cognitive brain function but with a physical disability that necessitates a feeding tube.

But to keep a person or better stated a “body” alive, a body with no higher brain function or cognitive awareness or any chance of recovery seems rather ghoulish and selfish to me. I’m sorry we disagree but in the case of my mother in law, I think it would have been more merciful and more moral and ethical to allow her to die a natural death, kept comfortable with the use of sedatives and pain medication presuming that she had any rudimentary sense of pain or sensation left, rather than to see her suffer the great indignities her body endured during the last four years of her physical life.

First, yes, we have been in that predicament, for twenty six years with a child many would say was PVS, and yet he lead a happy loving life, severely retarded and no way would we give him up. We are pro-life with no buts.

I am sorry about your child’s severe retardation and I absolutely applaud you and your family for caring for and loving your child. I in no way support “euthanasia” for the mildly or even the most severely disabled. But a person with Downs Syndrome, no matter how severely afflicted is not the same a person in a PVS. A person with Downs Syndrome, in even the most severe forms, still has some cognitive functions and a sense of self and awareness.

I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about a PVS and those coma patients in a minimally conscious state. When there are “miraculous” stories about people coming out of long term comas, they are patients who have been in a minimally conscious state and not patients who have been in a PVS. Patients in a minimally conscious state have a much better chance at realizing some level of recovery even after many years in that state than do patients in a persistent vegetative state. After being in a PVS for more than a year there is statistically no hope for any recovery. While patients in a PVS are not technically brain dead, it is only that part of the brain, the brain stem, the part of the brain responsible for heart rate and rhythm, respiration, gastrointestinal activity that still functions while the rest of the brain responsible for awareness ceases to function.

Recent functional neuroimaging results have shown that some parts of the cortex are still functioning in 'vegetative' patients. Such studies are disentangling the neural correlates of the vegetative state from the minimally conscious state, and have major clinical consequences in addition to empirical importance for the understanding of consciousness (Laureys, 2000). The minimally conscious state (MCS) is a recently defined clinical condition that differs from the persistent vegetative state (PVS) by the presence of inconsistent, but clearly discernible, behavioral evidence of consciousness (Boly, 2004). Researchers have analyzed functional neuroimaging results and demonstrated that cerebral activity observed in patients in an MCS is more likely to lead to higher-order integrative processes, thought to be necessary for the gain of conscious auditory perception. (Sara et al, 2007).

Maybe be it’s me; however, usually somebody says, “I’m pro-life, but,” it turns out that they are pretty much okay with killing any person for any reason. It’s the same as saying abortions should be “safe and legal and rare.”

Neither of you know me well enough and where I stand on abortion to make such a rash and uninformed opinion of me.

[wagglebee]

A feeding tube is “artificial” in the sense that a feeding tube is medical procedure where in a tube is inserted directly into the stomach of a patient who is unable take food and water orally and nutrients are artificially forced into the patient. This technology was not available until the late 1800’s and only perfected enough in the last 25 years to make it a viable course of treatment to sustain life for patients who cannot take nutrients otherwise.

No, they were developed at least 400 years ago, and they were perfected because of antibiotics. Do you consider penicillin to be "artificial life support"?

While patients in a PVS are not technically brain dead, it is only that part of the brain, the brain stem, the part of the brain responsible for heart rate and rhythm, respiration, gastrointestinal activity that still functions while the rest of the brain responsible for awareness ceases to function.

Actually, they are not "brain dead" in ANY sense of the term and there have been several people in worse shape than Lauren who have recovered in just the past few years.

Neither of you know me well enough and where I stand on abortion to make such a rash and uninformed opinion of me.

Neither of us offered any opinion about your views on abortion. I made an analogy, nothing more.

[8mmMauser]

Just to clarify... My son did not have Downs syndrome nor was he mildly retarded. He was severely retarded from birth far worse than Terri or Lauren and he lived anyway for 26 happy years in spite of medical advice. He was considered by many to be PVS but we knew better and witnessed through the fog of bias.

Also, he was given tubes during times he was under medical care at a facility, and we stopped it. They swore he could not eat, but he did. It took patience. They had the tubes for their convenience, not his. My opinion is neither rash nor uninformed. Those tubes were to feed him the easy way.

That is just plain eating in a different form. I have tons of experience and know what is pro-life and what is qualified pro-life. Abortion is one slice of it, only. You are talking down to people who know better. I stand by my earlier assessment.

If you want to enlighten yourself on my perspective try the Terri Dailies threads. I have been posting non-stop daily for three years chronicling virtually all stories related, like that of Lauren, and was on scene in Pinellas Park, having gathered a huge amount of factual information on Terri’s plight. You may learn something.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Every few years or so there is a mining disaster in this country. The MOMENT that happens, EVERY necessary resource is made available by federal, state and local governments to save the trapped miners. Millions of dollars are spent to save a handful of people. Sometimes it is successful, but some generally die. Should we, as a society, decide to stop doing this? If the mine owner doesn't have the resources or money should we just say, "too bad"?

Mine accidents are actually illustrate my point rather well: such efforts almost never rescue miners who do not make it out in the immediate aftermath of an explosion of fire, but they do stand a good chance of injuring or killing would-be rescuers. (1)

This fact is forgotten from disaster to disaster, only to be relearned when rescue efforts result in additional deaths and injuries... at which point those responsible for directing the rescue almost always abandon such efforts as too dangerous. (The risk, of course, is likely very similar to the risk before the additional loss: too high in relation to the very low probability of a successful rescue). (2)

It’s useful to contrast this with the SOP of a typical fire department, which faces these risks and makes these decisions on a daily basis, and thus would be more frequently reminded of the wasteful futility of such efforts were they frequently undertaken.

Such SOP’s will invariably apply a more realistic standard, a typical example reads: “A higher level of risk is acceptable only in situations where there is a realistic potential to save known endangered lives. This elevated risk must be limited to operations that are specifically directed toward rescue and where there is a realistic potential to save the person(s) known to be in danger.”

FDs devote considerable effort to cultivate a culture where violating such standards is seen not as heroic, but rather as unnecessarily risking not only the safety of the firefighter violating the SOP but potentially the lives of other emergency responders at the scene. (3)

Thus dramatic rescue efforts mounted in the glare of national publicity after mine explosion and fires are generally irrational and often counter-productive, as is demonstrated by the fact that they violate the standards set by organizations which because they must make such decisions on a daily basis have to create rational policies or face the consequences frequently enough to learn the necessary lessons.

(1) MINE RESCUE AND RECOVERY: WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN’T WORK, Mine Safety and Health Administration , http://www.msha.gov/S&HINFO/TECHRPT/MEO/MINERESC.pdf

(2) The most recent example was the loss of 3 men at the Herrington , UT mine, after which “Utah Gov. John Huntsman, who hurried to the scene… urged federal mine officials to make sure that safety of rescuers is "a paramount concern" in any resumption of rescue efforts. “Let us ensure that we have no more injuries. We have suffered enough.." “http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-16-utah-mine_N.htm”

(3) See for example the discussion in section 307.00 here: http://www.jonesboro.org/Fire/JFDStandardOperatingProcedures.pdf

[wagglebee]

Mine accidents are actually illustrate my point rather well: such efforts almost never rescue miners who do not make it out in the immediate aftermath of an explosion of fire, but they do stand a good chance of injuring or killing would-be rescuers.

Actually, you illustrated NOTHING.

My point about rescuing miners was meant to illustrate that as a society, we have always been able and willing to devote our resources to saving lives (which you further illustrate with fire departments).

You go on to talk about the inherent risks that rescuers take (risks they VOLUNTEER for and are TRAINED for), but there is ZERO correlation at this level to the case of Lauren or other euthanasia victims. There is NO DANGER to society in saving their lives.

You seem to have employed a classic liberal tactic of taking ONE PART of a comparison OUT OF CONTEXT and then using a conclusion that has nothing to do with the comparison to discredit everything else.

Additionally, you and all of the others who seem to smell blood in the water and are circling around to cheer on those who want to kill Lauren still haven't grasped another simple fact:
There is NO REASON to suspect that ANY tax money will be necessary for Lauren's care.

[floriduh voter]

Free Republic happens to be pro-life. How many morons don't realize that?????? They're spewing venom, they show up from a dark place and want to poison Lauren with their darkness.

Trolls-be-gone. You have no power here...

[floriduh voter]

Regarding JUDGE GREER, he's a corrupt Republican who was a zoning commissioner who turned into a killing machine.

www.judgegeorgegreer.com.

I would say it to his face too but I don't lurk in downtown Clearwater for various and sundry reasons.

[floriduh voter]

It appears lots of people are emailing Governor Minner... I have and am encouraging others to email her. Why should a disabled person surrender their civil rights as if by default? Life isn’t a contest where if you become impaired, you forfeit your life! That means disabled people, injured people and seniors.

[floriduh voter]

PVS is a catchall term that means SQUAT. Stop eating and drinking for five days and get back to me with a report. MMMMMkay? If you aren’t willing to do this yourself, you have no business recommending it for any other human being.