How would all this apply to the thousands of others out there in a similar situation to Terri? Particular those with living wills? Is this the federal government's business?
Terri didn't have a living will.
She has a husband who wants her dead.
Those are valid questions.
I believe that this won't affect the wishes of those with a living will. It's for those people who's specific wishes are unknown.
A good question - I do wonder that if Congress (the Federal Gov't) does act to stop this....will they set precedent that also stops other peoples own decisions via living wills -
Or will it be so structurally worded that it is only for this case (with the idea and explicit statement of setting no precedent)
No, just people in a schiavo-type case.
Why is it all or nothing with the pro-death crowd?
Yes, this is the Government's business. This is not about a right to die. IF Terri had a living will this would not be an issue. This is about human rights and the disabled. The is similar to Roe vs. Wade and the can of worms it opened up. It could open the door for many disabled to be terminated because of inconvenience. The Nazi's started like this.
This is not just about Terri. Yet, what they are doing to Terri, in my humble opinion, is murder. They didn't just remove the feeding tube, they are forbidding ANY oral feeding or hydration. We couldn't do that to a mangy dog. This is murder.
It won't have anything to do with the living will holders. This is for those like Terri, where it's only word of mouth, or none at all. That's what Delay said.
So you think that the alleged words casually mentioned years ago while watching television and testified by someone with a clear conflict of interest should trump the interest in preserving the life of this mentally functioning human being as her parents wish?
Seems to me preventing and punishing murder is a legitimate function of govenment. If the State of Florida, as represented by Judge Greer fails in its duty, the federal government certainly has a compelling interest in protecting Terri's right to life. There is really nothing complicated about this case. Terri's husband, supported by the coercive power of the State of Florida, wants to murder his wife by denying her food and water. If her loving husband did this sort of thing to a dog, there would be widespread indignant outrage and he would find his sorry a** in jail for long time.
The federal government does represent the people and the question is not that simplistic and constrained -life is an inalienable right from the Creator. Life is not a right given by the state or federal government. As such, life trumps matters of the state.
I believe there are plenty of people in comatose states, who breathe on their own, yet are fed by feeding tubes.
This bill WOULD NOT affect anyone with a living will. It would only apply to those who have NO written directives. Even then it would ONLY apply if there is a disagreement that is taken to court to settle.
This bill is merely another safeguard to allow for federal review when all state appeals are exhausted. This is a right any condemmed criminal is allowed.
Sigh. Again, this bill is designed to protect people without living wills from having someone else's wishes imposed on them. If you have a written directive, it doesn't apply to you.
A "living will" is not hearsay - it's a written request, dated and signed, by the person to whom it applies. If Terri and her husband were so convinced, they each would have written for themselves a "living will", don't you think?
Starvation is a tortuously prolonged *execution*. Starvation is not pulling out the plug to life support systems. Withholding food and water is beyond inhumane in this case - it's murderous.
I pray that President Bush will exercise his executive power and issue an order halt this inhumane and nefarious absurdity. Congress is composed of cowardly fakers. I am absolutely sick of those elite parasites. They will convene? What, like Annan and the UN meet?
Suppressed obscenities!