Posted on 03/27/2005 2:37:03 AM PST by mal
A couple of decades back, north of the border, it was discovered that some overzealous types in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had been surreptitiously burning down the barns of Quebec separatists. The prime minister, Pierre Trudeau, shrugged off the controversy and blithely remarked that, if people were so upset by the Mounties illegally burning down barns, perhaps he'd make the burning of barns by Mounties legal. As the columnist George Jonas commented
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Agreed.
If she is indeed in a PSV, I have no major problems with ending her life. The problem is that there are legitimate questions about whether she is PSV or not.
I also believe that if the law is going to allow PSV people to be killed, it should be done in a more humane way.
The present approach is the most rank hypocrisy. Perhaps PSV people should be classified as legally dead, and then appropriate measures canbe taken to turn their lights off.
As you say, Mark is great but this time he is off track.
That's one of the real dangers being set by this precedent of the court killing Terri Schindler. The decision was based on hearsay evidence. Hearsay can be used to "say" a lot of things, including what you suggest. The "Living Will" of today becomes simply "a scarp of paper" (to use another famous phrase that ushered in the deaths of millions) tomorrow. A "Living Will" that affirms a desire to live becomes meaningless in a culture of death.
According to the medical opinions accepted by the Court, she cannot swallow and therefore cannot eat or drink.
I think making an attempt to feed her or give her liquids by mouth would be entirely appropriate, and Michael's side is egregiously wrong in not permitting it.
The "meaningful life" argument is a dangerous and utterly corrupt reasoning that is often used by the death lovers. The flaw in it is easily exposed thusly: deciding that a life is "non-meaningful" and "not worth living" is a lot easier when that life is not your own.
I tend to agree with this, but if she truly cannot swallow and she ends up aspirating this will hasten her death quicker than the stopping of her tube feedings. Tough decision.
Do you think judges should ignore what you agree it says with regard to Teri's case, and reinterpret it to interfere with her legal guardian's medical decision? That is implicit in your argument.
Do you think judges should ignore what the laws says with regard to the definition of marriage, and the law to allow homosexual "marriage?"
If you are in favor of the first example of legislating from the bench and opposed to the second, on what do you base your position aside from personal opinion that one outcome is "good" and the other "bad?"
Don't you think it would be preferable to oppose the passage of a law to burn, starve or shoot me than to allow it to pass and then expect a judge to override it?
Please change second paragraph in above post to:
Do you think judges should ignore what the law says with regard to the definition of marriage, and reinterpret the law to allow homosexual "marriage?"
Sorry.
I think some enterprising lawyer needs to market what I call The Forever Living Will...This forbids anybody from withholding food water or needed medication from an incapacitated person ...it specifically recognizes the right of the holder to be kept alive until the skin falls off their skeleton...This would prevent idiot anti-life judges from murdering people without their express consent...
"Her husband is designated as her next of kin. As such, he has the legal right to make medical decisions for her."
And if her husband hasn't bben acting like a true husband, that makes no difference? That is not a factor for a judge to take into account when ruling on this case? Pahleese!!!
You people crack me up. You're all POed at this judge for not deviating from the letter of the law.
Isn't that what conservatives generally claim we want from judges? Or do we only want them to follow the law when the result is one we desire?
IMHO, the problem here is not the judge. The problem is the law. As such, the appropriate response is to change the law, not criticize the judge.
That's just it. I don't agree at all.
I never remotely implied that I did either. So please refrain from putting words in my mouth. Thank you.
Oh yeah, and BTW, thank you for answering my original question. However inadvertantly.
What next, "Soylent Green"?
"IMHO, the problem here is not the judge. The problem is the law. As such, the appropriate response is to change the law, not criticize the judge."
You know very well that by the time the law is changed, Terri will have long be cremated. And nobody uses more flexibility in interpreting laws today than arrogant, liberal judges.
Is it truly legal for a judge to order that Terri can't be fed by means other than the tube? Is that really a part of the law the Fla. legislature enacted?
$$$$
This is the sticking point for me, too. That seems to go way beyond the bounds of judicial right. I am convinced that the pro-death crowd are seriously afraid of anyone seeing her reaction to a substance in her mouth. She even had an order for no mouth care. That makes my skin crawl.
She was put in this hospice to die five years ago, and she has been "thwarting the will" of MS and his attorneys every since.
We want the judge to follow the law not twist it to suit the needs of the husband.
As soon as the judge ceased following the law a deviation in kind became necessary.
Wow!!!!!! I don't believe that you said that?
If we ever do, sadly, get to where your perhaps went, I sure hope I am on that board to help make some of those classifications! I could solve a whole hell of a lot of problems real fast!!!!!!
Where was NOW or any of the other animal and civil rights groups when the court would not even allow feeding by normal means? We treat animals with far more dignity, and take them away from abusive owners.
$$$$
Their silence reveals their true motivation.
More government control of American citizens.
How about something like:
"We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Isn't that what conservatives generally claim we want from judges? Or do we only want them to follow the law when the result is one we desire?
IMHO, the problem here is not the judge. The problem is the law. As such, the appropriate response is to change the law, not criticize the judge.
So, by that reasoning, you agree that what the Nazis did to the Jews was permissible, if it was done "according to the law"? It was. The German judges upheld and enabled all of the racial laws of the Reich, including those relevant to "The Final Solution". The appropriate action then would have been to "change the law", rather than opposing what the Nazis did?
We should note that the "vee vere only following zee law, honorable tribunal" defense didn't work at Nuremberg. That defense didn't stop those defendants from being found guilty of crimes against humanity. All appeals to the "legality" of state-sanctioned mass murder did not cut any mustard then, and rightly so.
You are perhaps intentionally misrepresenting my argument. I do not disagree that the law in questions appears to be flawed.
My disagreement is over the mechanism by which we should deal with these flaws. You seem to feel that the judge should ignore what the law says and substitute your opinions as to what the law should say for what it does. Or, that he should consult a "higher law" such as your interpretation of the Ten Commandments.
If you promote that in this case, on what grounds do you object when similar methods are used to promote others' agendas, such as gay marriage and special privileges for certain designated victim groups?
When laws are shown to be inappropriate, they should be changed through the legislative
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.