Posted on 10/25/2003 2:49:21 PM PDT by nickcarraway
http://www.hospicepatients.org/Hosp-FL-Suncoast-entrypage.html
He may be a big pro death liberal but he also knows that a good scandal helps keep the TV ratings up. (Kobe is a good example of this.) And if this doesn't qualify than I don't know what does.
In February of 1985, I woke up in a hospital bed in Boston, MA
Thanks for this story.
How then, can we find fault with a court that gives the
right to oversee a spouse's health and care, to the surviving
spouse? Should we compel a court or government agency
to oversee every decision a spouse makes for his family,
to insure it is the correct decision? To whose standards
should we have our family live to, if not our own?
Those are good questions. What this case boils down to the right-to-die has been enshrined in FL law, not to mention that it is a fundamental human right, that a spouse has the responsibility of upholding his spouses wishes, but that the spouse in this case has been judged (in the court of freeper opinion) to be unfit.
I believe it is an accurate opinion and his role as Terri's guardian should be challenged. But there is nothing we can legally do to challenge that. So instead we used an emotional appeal to get a law passed to save Terri.
The constitutionality of that law hardly matters, the fact is we are interfering in Michael's affairs and are opening the possibility for the state to interfere in any family's affairs like you suggested.
But unlike other constitutional and natural rights, the right of a spouse to fulfill the wishes of his spouse to die requires a burden of proof. Hearsay that is appears to manufactured after talking to a death-promoting lawyer doesn't cut it.
Ask any freeper, should Michael have the right to own a weapon of his choice to defend against threats to his life? Does he have the right to speak out to defend himself? Does he have every other natural right except the right to terminate his wife's life according to her alleged wishes? Yes absolutely, and yes, unfortunately.
Yes it's hypocritical, yes it's emotional. But we are on the right side, the side of Terri's right to live. If she had a living will we would have to accept that. If she had a way to express a desire to die, we would respect that. But she doesn't so Michael and his scumbag lawyer are out of luck.
I think even hard core right-to-die types can eventually see that Michael is unfit to be Terri's guardian. What I didn't like about the threads was the innuendo against Michael such as how he "strangled" his wife. That serves no purpose and still doesn't. Our enthusiam to save Terri's life should be based on a emotional attachment to Terri, her humanity and her family. Her life is worth saving and passing a special law that may infringe on other "right-to-die" cases was worth it. I believe in the right-to-die, not the right-to-kill.
I feel for her spirit. This is purgatory and needless.
This is obviously very emotional for you. But referring to Terri's body as "shell-hell" and calling her "veggie" sounds downright disrespectful.
Some people are very discomforted by seeing someone who appears helpless and weak. They project their own fear of incapacity onto the other. They imagine the worst when they think about being in a position of dependency. Terri's story exposes our deepest, most hidden feelings about losing control.
Take a peek at this url: HERE It gives some insight worth
reading.
If Terri is not an a permanent vegetated condition and
her condition can be improved, then it is worth whatever it
takes to save her.
If Terri is in a permanent vegetated state and her condition
can never be improved; if she is living in hell inside her
coffin of a body, may the good Lord take mercy on those
that insisted on keeping her there longer than absolutely
necessary.
It would be the same as burying her alive and forcing
her to remain alive.
"A man's intentions are only as good as his conscience".
Thanks for the sane input.
Quite honestly, between the hopeful testimony from a multiple doctors that was totally ignored by greer, and the allegation that -- in addition to felos -- at least one of the favored neurologists is also a right-to-death advocate, I wouldn't put stock in what they have to say.
Bottom line: Terri's malpractice award was to be used for therapy; she deserved therapy all these years. The buck stops there. Since she didn't get it then; she will get it now. However she improves, is up to God's will. michael schiavo skipped over the therapy and wanted to rush Terri right towards death for whatever reason(s). We will soon find out if there was anything untoward there, won't we? If he permitted Terri to receive therapy all these years and then saw very little improvement, he might have a better standing in the eyes of the public. He doesn't and it is with many good reasons that he is considered a lout.
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.