Posted on 11/01/2011 7:58:26 AM PDT by surroundedbyblue
FREDERICK, Md. — A judge in Maryland must decide if a man who suffered severe brain damage after a heart attack should continue getting sustenance through a feeding tube at his mother’s and brother’s behest, contrary to his wife’s instructions.
A Frederick County Circuit Court judge will hear arguments Wednesday in the case involving Daniel Sanger, 55, of Rohrersville. The unemployed computer technician lost much of his speaking ability and mobility after a heart attack in July, according to his brother Mark Sanger, a Eugene, Ore., businessman.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
FRiends, we have another fellow citizen who will be executed by the state if we allow this judge to rule in favor of the wife. Lord, have mercy.
Ping
that this is even going to be heard in a court of law is, as far as I’m concerned, the sound of “Taps” for the whole bloody “experiment.”
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
There’s so much wrong here that words fail me.
Note the cushy statement from the Hospice person about having your wishes put in writing so families don’t need to be torn apart blah blah blah. Are you serious??? So I need to write down that my damily isn’t allowed to starve me to death? Unreal.
I just got out my rosary. That’s about all I can offer right now.
This poor man has an infected bed sore on his back... that isn’t being treated. I’m afraid that his death will come much sooner than his parents can get to a court. Once that infection hits the blood stream (which is what the wife may know or hope for)... he’ll pass.
Verily familiar. God bless this situation and guide those making decisions that only God should be making.
BUMP FOR ANOTHER TERRY SHIAVO CASE.
something tells me that if we did not like the way in which the Florida courts dealt with this scenario, we are REALLY not gonna like what the Peoples Republic of Maryland has to say about it
So now, along with everything else this poor man has suffered, he knows that his wife would prefer him dead. I just don’t understand it.
“So I need to write down that my (f)amily isn’t allowed to starve me to death?”
Perhaps you would prefer the State or Federal government to make decisions about YOUR care, if you should become unable to do so. I’d rather leave it to my wife.
From the brief story I read, it is not clear to me if the patient is capable of making and communicating his wishes. If he is, then the decision on the feeding tube is his. If not, and absent any documented directive, the decision goes to his wife. Others are free to dispute her in court and seek guardianship.
You may not like HER decision. But the process here seems about right.
Assuming your wife doesn't want to kill you, that's a no-brainer.
“Perhaps you would prefer the State or Federal government to make decisions about YOUR care, if you should become unable to do so. I’d rather leave it to my wife.”
Um, that’s NOT what I’m saying. My point is that the state should protect me in the event that someone in my family is trying to execute me, not enable the person wishing me harm. I shouldn’t have to write THAT down. Sheesh.
“You may not like HER decision. But the process here seems about right”
Really? So you have no problem with starving an innocent person to death? I got news for you - FOOD is not life support.
In the past, Maryland courts have been in favor of the relative wishing to keep the patient alive. They have granted the decision to the parents rather than the spouse who wants to terminate life support.
“... his wife would prefer him dead”.
I wonder if she isn’t looking “down the road”. I mean she doesn’t want a disabled husband and would rather him die than remember those words... “In sickness and health”.
No. You have a Living Will or Directive because it's what YOU want. NOT what anyone else wants.
Definition of INALIENABLE
: incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
“My point is that the state should protect me in the event that someone in my family is trying to execute me, not enable the person wishing me harm. I shouldn’t have to write THAT down. Sheesh.”
You are confusing me. You deny wanting to give primary decison-making to the state but then assert that the state should make the decisions in the event you cannot and have left no directives.
“...FOOD is not life support.”
I’m confused again. I thought the reason we were having this discussion is because food IS life support.
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.