Posted on 03/11/2005 4:25:34 PM PST by gopwinsin04
Basically, they ruled that an unconditional requirement that people be given food and water was unconstitutional. The legislature thus made the requirement so it wasn't unconditional, but made the conditions too loose.
I don't know what a "useless eater" is, don't think I want to go there. Just last week I was visiting a new store in town, saw two wheel-chair bound adolescents accompanied by a caring custodian. They were on oxygen and their eyes were vacant and unresponsive.
Wake up, Flori-duh. Who'se next? These disabled youngsters? Elderly stroke victims? Any disbaled individual who is inconvenient? Maybe you, a few years down the road? Would you lock an old dog in his kennel and forget about him for 15 days until he's dead? Your decision sets policy for the rest of us, and a huge responsibility lies on your shoulders.
It is sort of like what the Nazi's used to think. It costs us money to feed them and therefore we would be better off without them. Intellectual murder, if you will.
Like Schiavo, Felos, and Greer? I see no other rational explanation for their refusal to allow oral feeding.
Medicare malpractice. In order to get the money she needs to be terminal. Most terminal people do not eat by spoon. Of course this is just a guess.
You are unfamiliar with the rulings of the FSC. They have ruled that the power to kill Terri Schiavo emanates from the Florida Constitution, not from Florida Law. Ergo, any law passed by the legislature will be ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
The same court that was laughed at by the US Supreme court. I have a feeling those folks can't even read.
Yup, the Kangaroo Kids.
Terrorist get more help and sympathy than does this poor woman.
God protect her.
But if Terri is unable to take food orally, what would be the harm in letting the parents try? The only "harm" I could see, from anybody's perspective, would be if they succeeded in which case it would prove that attempting to kill Terri would be nothing less than premeditated murder.
In other words, the laws passed by both houses in the legislature have no merit with the courts. Interesting.
i dare say that the people that think that Terri's life isn't "worth saving" prolly wouldn't say the same thing about Steven Hawking NOW after what he has accomplished, but what about before?
Just because someone needs a feeding tube is NOT a reason to kill them---there are a lot of physical illnesses and even emotional illnesses that require patients to a have a feeding tube, but that doesn't mean that they automatically should be "put down"!!!
I am really, really having a hard time figuring out what is in it for the judge to be this way---he has the power to "stay" her execution at any time, for any reason, for any length of time, but he won't---
Maybe he is getting a cut of the malpractice payoff---
thanks for the ping. Quite a resemblance; alas, Greer won't suffer Mussolini's fate.
Thank God!
Brilliant! What a mind on you.
Is it just my imagination, or is there a strange resemblance?
Not true. My first concern has always been for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It has to be - for the good of all of us.
Individual law-abiding citizens are, first and foremost, promised equal federal protection. Nobody talked me into changing my stance on state laws - it came with a great deal of reading and re-reading those sacred (to me) documents.
Does that mean you support Terri Schiavo's right to life? Or does it mean that you only support those parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that don't interfere with killing her?
Yes, Dog Gone - they CAN pass an uncomplicated bill. But, by you telling us that over and over and over and over isn't going to get them the PASS THAT UNCOMPLICATED BILL "it's that easy". Somehow, WE have to get them to pass that uncomplicated bill. But HOW???? Who's going to do it?
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.