Posted on 03/26/2005 6:21:34 PM PST by Ludicrous
ROCHESTER, N.Y. - A former nursing home aide imprisoned for raping a patient in a coma-like state nearly a decade ago was denied parole after he claimed he was only trying to help the woman, who later gave birth.
John Horace, 60, said he thought a pregnancy could awaken the woman, known publicly as Kathy, from her coma, according to parole transcripts.
"I thought that by doing this, if she came out of the coma ... she would have a normal life again," Horace said at a state Parole Board hearing earlier this month. He claimed he had read in a medical book how to impregnate a comatose woman to help her recover.
Horace was convicted in 1997 of first-degree rape and first-degree sexual abuse and received eight to 25 years in prison.
A transcript of the Sept. 8 parole hearing was obtained by the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle under state public access law.
Kathy had been in a chronic vegetative state since a car accident in 1985 when she was 19. Her pregnancy was discovered in late 1995, and she gave birth prematurely to a son in March 1996. She died a year later, never having regained consciousness. (story continues)
(Excerpt) Read more at phillyburbs.com ...
First the woman's parents chose to continue her life although she is "vegetative. Second they chose to allow the pregnancy to continue even though she was raped and unaware of her condition. The woman's parents are caring for the child who was born healthy but premature. AFAIK, the woman is still in a coma. The rapist remains in jail.
He got his lines right but the other actors (Felos and Greer) were missing from the stage.
They are occupied in another play where they get to kill an innocent woman.
After all, according to the appeals court, the 8th Amendment only applies to punishment ordered by the court for an offense against the state.
If the prisoner is not fed by the warden, that's not a problem under the 8th Amendment, as long as it is not sanctioned by the court as punishment for an offense against the state. Let the court label it "euphoria treatment" or "benign neglect" and according to the appeals court, it isn't an 8th Amendment issue.
That's QUICK thinking on his part. But no cigar.
... or maybe it was his lawyer's thinking.
This is a shame! I would like John Horace to have a chance at a normal life. Let's give him 50,000 volts and see if that does the trick.
"I thought that by doing this, if she came out of the coma ... she would have a normal life again," Horace said"
Sounds like a line from Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest.
Wow. The chance to abort a baby and kill off a person in a vegetative state all in one fatal stroke. It's Felos' dream come true.
Kathy had been in a chronic vegetative state since a car accident in 1985 when she was 19. Her pregnancy was discovered in late 1995, and she gave birth prematurely to a son in March 1996. She died a year later, never having regained consciousness.
Prosecutors and doctors suspected he had adminstered his "treatment" on numerous occasions before she actually concieved. They also suspected he had been raping other coma victims as well. Of course these suspicions were impossible to prove. The baby's DNA was the most conclusive evidence since the victim could not testify.
I stand corrected.
I have a serious question. It's not designed to inflame but rather to show how serious what is going on in Florida is, and how it may affect those who are in the condition such as this young woman was in.
Either Felos or one of his cronies spoke this past week his belief people in the PVS stage of existence are not covered/entitled to the same rights as others in under the Constitution.
If, as things are going, more doctors, and politicians and Americans in general accept thinking like his - because, after all, the people in PVS aren't really there...
1. Would this young woman's rapist even have been charged?
2. Could the hospital just have killed her baby, without her family even being allowed to take the child home to love and raise?
Before people scoff, remember:
At the time of the Roe vs Wade, no one (except those who saw long term ramifications) ever believed that a baby would ever be killed. Now you have a bioethics 'professor' at Harvard (I believe it's Harvard - those who know for sure please update) who believes moms and dads should be allowed to decide if their babies should rejected (killed) for up to a period of 30 days, without being charged with a crime.
He was not talking being given up for adoption.
He was talking people having the legal right to kill a baby. It (the baby) could be classified a non-person for that length of time; therefore no crime would have been committed.
The only thing protecting these innocents aside from "We, the people," on a piece of paper is... WE, THE PEOPLE.
This is what bothers me when someone says, "I'm looking for every legal way..."
Last question for this missive:
3. What happens when Legal is not moral, and what's moral is not allowed to be legal?
Answer to question#3: President Hillary Clinton will be pleased;)
the bioethics prof you're thinking of is Peter Singer, who's at Princeton
"AFAIK, the woman is still in a coma."
That's simply ...Ludicrous.
/sarcasm
Read the copy again Lud., ... sadly the bottom line says "She died a year later, never having regained consciousness."
This family consistently made the right decisions through the loss of a child to comma and death while preventing another death by abortion. IMHO.
As for the perp... gitta rope.
Frightening questions. No good answers.
Re #2 The hospital was compelled to notify the parents when the pregnancy was discovered. The hospital could not end the pregnancy without authorization from the girls leagl guardians. No doubt they urged the parents to authorize abortion as it was considered a high-risk preganancy due to her condition, but as Catholics, they refused. Even if PVS patients rights are eroded as you suggest, the guardians still have rights and decision authority.
What a sick f**k
You have the Pharisees telling Christ that he can't heal people on the Sabbath....
My husband and I remember the case only to well.
If, however, the patient was not considered to be under the auspices of the Constitution, my thinking is the hospitial would simply counter with the abortion being considered part of their protocol for the welfare of the patient.
Once guardians give approval for the day-to-day protocol to be decided by the hospital, an entirely new grouping of what you and I would call 'abuses,' would most likely be sanctioned by the likes of judges such as Greer.
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.