Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
"Nearly 350 posts and nobody wants to discuss the merits of euthanasia. Still waiting...
"
That is another issue. Why don't you go find a case of euthanasia in the news, post it, and we'll all come and discuss it.
Oregon's a good place to start looking.
Just checking in while my hubby is at work, and giving my feet a rest after 2 days of walking the Strip(Las Vegas). I see things haven't changed since I last looked.
Thanks for the ping, Howlin. Thanks, also, to Long Cut for starting this thread.
New WPPFF member
If he had that authority, why did he need hearsay evidence to establish her wishes?
Skip the insults and try answering the question.
I find it unethical for a lawyer to be giving campaign contributions to a judge before whom he is practicing, but hey, that's just my opinion, and the case I laid out is not dependent on this.
With regards to the denial of a stay on the federal level, the dissenting of Judge Wilson says it a lot more thoroughly than can I, but I can paraphrase by saying the law demanded a de novo review; the failure to issue a stay made a de novo review; therefore the judiciary deliberately flouted the clear intent of the law. If they did it on a technicality (a stay not being mandated) it doesn't make it any less a nullification of the clear intent of the legislature.
Psst. This IS a case of euthanasia in the news.
Really, who? Please provide evidence to support your allegations.
"Are all diabled persons "living death", as you call it? "
"diabled" -- I like that one. Roots which tie to the devil, old Diablo.
So, I assume you mean a bedeviled person by that sentence. Well, I don't believe in the existence of any devils or any other supernatural entity, so I guess there aren't any such people.
Sorry I'm late to the party, but well said, Chad.
Well, it's gotten a little better... the logical rational sane crew has produced one poster who wants to discuss the merits of the legal arguments and is doing so with civility and rigor.
Sadly, 500+ posts into this I STILL haven't a taker on discussing the T-4 program and the simliarities in this case.
Well since its a 2-1 decision yes.
After all, how would you view it, if in interpreting the law as passed by Congress, in an unprecednted manner, they chose to rely on Senator Levin, for advice on intent?
Odd, how people will run to embrace one of the most notorious $cumb@g$ in the Senate, when the mood suits them.
The fact remains that the only thing Whittemore - and hence the 11th - was empowered to do is examine Federal constitutional violations. In that context, it is a very weak position for Gibbs to simply argue that Terri is not PVS or that there are differing medical opinions. It is necessary to establish that these alleged facts form the basis for a violation of Federal constitutional rights.
If there was a Catch-22 in the law, i.e. a de novo hearing can only have meaning if a stay is entered - then this Catch-22 was created KNOWINGLY by Congress. They talked about it on the floor.
I was in the garage working and listening to Rush. I have listened to him, on and off, since the late 1980's and I do believe he is losing it.
He was spouting off in a comparison of the unions asking Congress to step in and help them stop Walmart advertizement, or some shuch rot, and with Congress getting involved with Terri Schiavo.
The shrink couches are plumb full up. ;)
Thanks for the ping.
Hearsay evidence is not necessarily faulty or unreliable. In fact, it often is 100 percent accurate. I don't presume to know what Terri's wishes were. It's entirely possible her husband lied, but it's also possible he was telling the truth when he recounted what she said. (Psst: recounting what another person said is "hearsay"). I wasn't there, and neither were you.
Thanks. :)
Odd how you would ignore that Senator Frist was quoted saying the same thing as Levin.
For whatever reason, I don't listen to Rush anymore. Can't say why. Just don't.
I think I actually preferred listening to Rush when he was doped to the gills... ;0)
Good questionaire.
___ Do you believe feeding tubes should ever be removed?
There are times it is appropriate.
___ If no, does that include even when the patient has stated their wishes?
A person has the right to refuse treatment. I might think they are doing it too early, and might try to counsel them otherwise, but ultimately it's between them and God. There are times when it is absolutely the right choice, like any refusal of treatment at the end of life. Please don't put me on a ventillator if I am dying from ALS
___ Do you object to a feeding tube being removed Terri because it is not definite that she is PVS?
I don't know for sure, because I haven't gotten a chance to go through all the back and forth...as a general rule of thumb, I don't like doing this healthy, if damaged bodies because of my religous beliefs. I admit it's a moral stance, and if you have a directive saying otherwise, I will not block your right to choose.
___ Do you object to a feeding tube being removed from Terri because you do not believe the courts established that her wishes were suffiently know in this matter?
I believe that the courts went though and did what was legally correct - chosing the word of the husband to help them make a decision. I am not for sure if this really was her wishes, but I also think Michael is the one most responsible under the law to make live or death decisions for Terri, by virtue of his being married to her.
___ Do you object to a feeding tube being removed from Terri because you don't trust her husband?
He's been demonized so much that I wouldn't trust my judgement of what I thought about him. I suspect he is hardheaded and determined by nature.
___ Would you like to be in Terri's condition for 15 years?
If I was in Terri's condition, and not in pain from bedsores, and not in pain I probably wouldn't mind. Life is frequently sweet wherever you are on its spectrum if you are not in pain and have stimulus appropriate to your condition.
I would not choose to be in Terri's condition if I didn't have to be there.
___ Do you want Congress to supercede your wishes if you have a Living Will?
Not at all.
I got your back, Redman. ; )
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.