The FLA legislature is going to have to change their wording on PVS and who it is that is actualy terminal, and what is acceptable for a living will . That is what is going on in this case.
Your are safe, your living will is safe and I for one would not advocate taking your right to die away. I happen to believe that terminal patients should have that right if they have a living will.
I do not think that the government should side with a husband who wants to kill his wife just because he does not want to split his assets with her, because he wants to get married in a church , because her care is a burden to him, she stands in the way of a financial gain and/ or wants to cover up an attempted murder on her.
Just because you or anyone else thinks being disabled is a death sentance, does not mean the person with the actual disability thinks that way. You are, indeed, advocating that everyone should think just like you. To others life is precious disabled or not, and those people have just s many rights in this country as you do. You may find that distasteful and frustrating, but it is the nature of our system. If you want disabled people to be the property of their gaurdian, and have to subcome to the will of another person, and have all of their god given and constitutional rights taken away, why not form an activist group and lobby the governement. That is how the laws are changed in this country.
General Background info:
A few days ago, I sent the following two messages, via Freepmail, to one of the more-rational posters with whom I had exchanged comments on various Terri / Michael Schiavo threads in the (then) prior few days.
Since, at the urging of this sites owner, I deciding just before sending these messages to cease participating in discussion / debate of this topic at this site, these messages were my attempt to continue (or begin) a reasonable discussion of the associated issues, in private, with one of the more rationale posters whom I encountered in discussing this topic here in those prior days.
However, since I've not as yet received any response to those messages from that poster, I am posting them here now as a more general invitation to anyone else here who may wish to discuss / debate this topic with me privately, either via Freepmail or via general email, or at another site of their choosing where such discussion / debate may be more welcomed.
If you are interested in pursuing such discussion, please contact me via Freemail (i.e., a "private reply" to this post).
Message #1 (posted solely for additional background perspective)
Since 'quitting' the 'save Terri' threads (you wouldn't happen to already know why I did that, would you) I've looked at a few of your posts in other types of threads.
I understand the principles that seem to drive you, but given your apparent logical nature in other matters, I cannot understand why you don't use that skill in the 'save Terri' matter, much less why you urge other posters with lesser ability in that regard to post in your stead.
I would be willing to discuss the topic privately with you, if you wish to do so; for so long as you refrain from insults/inflammatory questions/accusation re me "wanting-to-kill," or the like.
The reasons I didn't respond directly to some of your questions (besides them being answered in multiple threads to other posters - as said in response to your 'clock-ticking' insult posts) are:
You started 'with me' by posting to others about me, not to me (I tend to ignore such posters, in that direct posts to them are generally a waste of time), mostly instructing others on how to deal with me - not a very good approach if you want someone to interact with you
Even when you later began addressing posts to me, you mostly just talked about me in the third person to others again instructing them on how to deal with me (in some posts you even referred to me as 'its') - again not a good technique if you want responses from someone
Also, you added Jim Rob to the list of "to crowd" when first posting to me (or at least including my SN in the list) making it seem that you want him to "watch NAL" in this exchange - trying to set me up were you? - this didn't particularly bother me, since many of your cohorts had already done the same - but, again, not a good approach if you want interaction
In any case, if you want to have a private discussion, let me know.
Message #2 (background info / grounds rules / basis for discussion) *
I decided to send you the following to facilitate your response to my earlier message.
Premises / background / basis for our potential discussion:
1. Do you agree that (independent of how we know this) IF Terri wanted not be sustained in such physical/mental condition via feeding tube, ventilator, or the like, that she should not be, i.e. that she should now be allowed to die (or maybe should have been so allowed long ago)?
2. Do you agree that her current condition is such that potential for even a partial recovery, e.g., to a meaningful mentally or physically functioning level is virtually nil (and/or that it meets the criteria that she intended, stated, or implied in #1; again, independent of how we know this).
3. Do you agree that IF #'s 1 and 2 are true, then any mention of her husbands nature, character, actions, wealth, wealth acquiring potential, etc., either before or after her current condition came to be (except to judge credibility on the key issue) is irrelevant, i.e., just a strawman argument?
4. Do you agree that IF #'s 1 and 2 are true, the act of complying with her wishes and allowing her to die should not be referred to as murder, or killing her, or starving her to death, or the like?
5. Do you agree that, in our legal system, only a judge (or jury, if applicable) can determine the credibility of witnesses and the relevancy of evidence presented and make the overall findings (albeit subject to judicial-appeal reviews for compliance with proscribed procedures, etc.)? *
* Even if you disagree with this one, neither of us is privy to sufficient info to second-guess or to support (except philosophically) the testimony given, evidence presented, or process followed.
- - - - - - - - - -
If you disagree with #1, there is no need for a discussion (unless just a philosophical one). But, such disagreement clearly means that you are trying to impose you will against her wishes, and that you might try to impose your will on me against my wishes if I were in her condition.
If you disagree with #2, there is no need for a discussion (unless just a 'medical' one). But, I ask that you give at least one example of someone in her condition recovering after 13+ years in that condition before we start what I think might be an interesting, but basically pointless discussion.
If you disagree with #3, some discussion may be interesting, possibly even worthwhile, but likely would just be a waste time, and could preclude ever getting to the key issue(s). To recap, if you agree with #'s 1 and 2, any discussion of her husband or even of how she arrived at her current condition is simply not relevant - her wishes should now be complied with in any case.
If you disagree with #4, some discussion may be worthwhile, but considerable time will be wasted, and there is great risk the discussion will degenerate into an insult-trading bout. For clarity: tf you disagree with this one, be advised that I may feel compelled to return such insults, more or less in kind, and this would not be helpful to a fruitful discussion.
If you disagree with #5, there is no need for a discussion (unless just a philosophical one). I think that our justice system, albeit somewhat flawed, is the best yet devised by man. And, I'm opposed to replacing it with "mob-rule" where one (large or small) group of individuals can override it in order to impose their beliefs on others. If you believe otherwise, we might have an interesting discussion about this, but it would be pointless in relation to the issue at hand.
If none of these obstacles exist, or if you can overcome them (they are not obstacles for me), then we may very well have a beneficial discussion.
- - - - - - - - - -
BTW, may have noticed that if you agree with #'s 1, 2 and 4, there is no need for a discussion. This would mean that we are in basic agreement on the key issues, i.e., the only issues that are relevant. However, this also would mean that you have no problem with the process that led us to this point, and that you/others have just been discussing rather interesting, but ultimately irrelevant, issues - some possibly for venting or and others possibly just for their amusement.
I acknowledge the circular nature of the above summary and the "no need for discussion if you disagree" with #'s 1, 2 and/or 4. I.e., there's no need for a discussion whether you agree or disagree on these key issues (unless the discussion is simply for philosophical, venting, or entertainment purposes; and/or to facilitate insult trading).
- - - - - - - - - -
I want you to know that I didn't start preparing the above list as a game-playing exercise; rather its circular nature simply evolved. Even so, a discussion may still be worthwhile, BUT:
- If you agree with #'s 1, 2, and 4, you must eventually reconcile your discomfort and just accept the pre-legislative intervention decision as proper; OR,
- If you disagree with any or all of these key points, you will just have to (continue to) vent philosophically and eventually begrudgingly accept the outcome, whatever it may be.
Should we proceed with a discussion, or just cut bait? Your call.
Final Notes:
[* Note: message #2 is slightly expanded (condition #2 added for clarity, whereas I initially thought it was implied by / included with #1) and has some refined wording, when compared with the message as originally sent.]
[Please respond only via Freepmail, i.e., "private reply," so that I may comply with the wishes of the owner of this site.]
[Please recognized that time-restrictions likely will not allow me to only carry on such a private discussion with more than one person, or possibly 2-3 people depending on various factors. So, if more people are interested in pursuing such discussion with me, I may consider the nature and quality of their initial response to this post, rather than using simple first-come selection criteria.]
[I'm considering making a slightly modified version of this post at another site, where anyone may participate in an open discussion of this topic. However, the site that I initially considered, Liberty Post, has a site manager who apparently feels as strongly about this topic as the owner of this site, and such open discussion / debate there may also be frowned upon. So, for now, I'm interested only a private discussion of this topic.]