Posted on 03/28/2005 2:13:58 PM PST by thoughtomator
I noticed the link didn't come out when I posted (bad html I guess)- but he's right you know.
I usually try to source any material I use from other places...
Yes, and those come first, this one hurts I know, I am a cold hearted old man and this one gets to me too, stay safe and be well.
Like I said, that guy on that other forum is right in what he said. Exactly right.
What, both times the 'mysterious attribution link' didn't post? LOL! This is your personal 'buckhead' moment.
Another thread......
Hillary: Pull Plug On Patients Like Terri
Newsmax ^ | 3-28-2005 | Carl Limbacher & Newsmax Staff
Posted on 03/28/2005 10:56:15 AM EST by Pendragon_6
Since the Terri Schiavo case began to dominate the headlines ten days ago, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has gone into virtual hiding - refusing to show up for last Sunday's vote on congressional intervention and offering no public comment on the case in the intervening eight days.
But in Sept. 1993, while appearing before Congress to sell her ill-fated health care reform plan, Mrs. Clinton suggested that she wanted to make it easier to deny long term care to patients like Schiavo who have little chance of recovery.
"I think there should be a discussion in this country about what is appropriate care . . . with more thought and more concern about both the human and the economic cost," she told the Senate Finance Committee. Referring to her own health care plan, Hillary explained:
"If we do this health care reform right [we can] create the kind of security we're talking about so that people will know that they're not being denied treatment for any reason other than it is not appropriate, it will not enhance or save the quality of life."
Mrs. Clinton hinted that she thought that even patients who were not necessarily terminally ill should be denied life-saving treatment
I got it to work the 3rd time, above... Fat fingers, what can I say?
I always atrribute with sources if the words are not my own. However, I'm not perfect like you are.
So stick a sock in it.
And just how do you happen to know that he is acting out of vindictiveness?
"My understanding is that the $750,000 awarded was used for her care. The other funds were awarded to him for loss of consortium"
You haven't seen the chart, then. It's good. It's on another thread around here. I don't know which one.
Now, now, that's rather harsh, don't you think?
very intuitive.
Indeed. Unfortunately, Michael had a dishonest judge protecting his guardianship from challenge. Otherwise, Terri would have divorced him (guardians can file for divorce on behalf of incapacitated wards, and this would be precisely the sort of situation for which that law was written) and then there would have been no "family" dispute.
Still, it's puzzling that people call Michael 'family' even though he is the antithesis of everything family stands for.
Nineteen courts and thrice to the Supreme Court is not a "second review of the facts?!!?"
Doesn't matter. It's not our business, IMO.
All I can really speak to is my wishes, which is that I wouldn't want to be a complete invalid for 15 years, even if it meant that there was some miniscule chance that I might recover to become a shadow of my former self.
Because that's what you're talking about here, really - holding out for some miraculous miniscule recovery. No matter what medical advancements come down the pike in the next few years, I'm pretty certain that they won't be transplanting cerebral cortexes, or growing them in a petri dish - especially since we're not allowed to clone or use stem cells.
If Terri wasn't really PVS, then she was murdered. Murder is everyone's business.
Let me know if you find it, I've been kind of scarce lately. I'd like to see 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.