The fact is under the law NOBODY has to accept ANY medical treatment if they don't want it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to end of life situations.
Who cares what a polls says?
The courts found that Terri's husband spoke for her when it came to her desire NOT to be kept alive in a vegatative state. PERIOD.
Do you want the law demanding Doctors shove tubes down your throat, hook you up to machines or shock you back to life multiple times each day to keep you alive, REGARDLESS of your wishes?
I don't !
I don't want to be starved or thirsted to death.
"The courts found that Terri's husband spoke for her when it came to her desire NOT to be kept alive in a vegatative state. PERIOD."
=====
The "courts" was Judge Greer, who took the word of a biased witness, who had a conflict of interest with keeping Terri alive. Surely you couldn't have ignored all the information: MS said under oath that he didn't know what Terri wanted, and that he will spend his life tending to her, and he received a huge medical malpractice award, based on that.
THEN, seven years AFTER Terri fell into her condition, he suddenly remembered, that Terri said that she wouldn't want to live hooked up to tubes, when they were watching a movie on TV of someone who was hooked up to the respirator and other machines.
And based on this -- with NO written instructions -- you KILL an innocent person?
Murderers couldn't be convicted on this kind of evidence, but you think it's OK to do that to an innocent person?
A person who had loving parents and a family who wanted to surround her with love and take care of her?
And you should also note, that the judge didn't even order the tube removed, and let Terri live, if she could drink and swallow -- he forbade any food or water be given to Terri by any means.
Does this strike you as the right thing to do?
As I said in my column, the parents should have asked seven years ago for a separate counsel for Terri alone. And the first action of that counsel should have been to file for a divorce. If Michael had been removed as husband, he would have been removed as guardian. And that would have prevented the events we observed in the last two weeks.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column, "The Fatal Attraction of the Inside Straight"
Wow...we find ourselves on the same side of an issue.
Overnight, the forum which has historically derided the left for wanting to govern according to how the "feel" about things, and has demanded the impeachment of Judges who adjudicate based on how they "feel" about a law, rather than on what the law says, is all in an uproar because they "feel" that the law was wrong, and that the Judge should have based his findings on things other than the law
Well, it's a bad law, but that's not for the Judge to decide, and not for a Court to ignore because they don't "like" it.
And now, we find ourselves comfortably cruising through that weird Clinton universe where polls mean more than laws.
And we seem to "like" it.
Tell that to those locked up for mental disorders, including anorexia.
And the fact is that evidence must be clear and convincing. I want the law protecting my right to make that decision and if I'm unable, I want the evidence of those that presume to know my wishes to be clear and convincing. Speaking for myself, the idea that a brother or sister-in-law would be more reliable than my family or closest friends is preposterous.
Have you ever seen a grossly obese person and said "Man, I wouldn't want to live that way!!!"
Have you ever seen a dirty, homeless person and said "Ew! I wouldn't want to live that way!!"
Have you ever said something like "If I ever have a zit on my face as big as that guys, please kill me!"
That's what Michael used as "proof" she wanted to die. An impulsive, off the cuff comment at a funeral!
Do you want the law demanding Doctors shove tubes down your throat, hook you up to machines or shock you back to life multiple times each day to keep you alive, REGARDLESS of your wishes?
I don't !
What case are you talking about? None of this was done to Terri S. Maybe you are on the wrong thread,,,,,or wrong website? Take your ignorant venom elsewhere.
Food and water is not "medical treatment", and any laws that treat it as such, are idiotic.
ESPECIALLY when it comes to end of life situations.
The Schiavo case was not an "end of life situation".
The courts found that Terri's husband spoke for her when it came to her desire NOT to be kept alive in a vegatative state. PERIOD.
That's true. And they had woefully insufficient basis for doing so. PERIOD.
Do you want the law demanding Doctors shove tubes down your throat, hook you up to machines or shock you back to life multiple times each day to keep you alive, REGARDLESS of your wishes?
WTF are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the Schiavo case. You weren't paying attention, were you?
Your choice.
Terri wasn't given a choice. there is NO proof that she ever said she would prefer to be starved to death - only a man to whom her continued breathing was inconvenient...and who only remembered, after 7 years, that she said she wouldn't want to be kept alive by artificial life support.
Never mind that a tube to give nutrient and water 3 times a day are not considered life support, never mind she was not terminal, never mind that michael had testified PREVIOUSLY and IN COURT, when suing for millions to "take care of Terri for the rest of her life" - citing 50 years...he said she had never told him whether she would want to be kept alive on life support or not.
So go get you papers all in a row...and may you not, should you find yourself injured and unable to speak, change you mind about having the plug pulled - as doctors will tell you 9 out of 10 do change their minds when actually finding themselves in that situation - Oh, why am I bothering to talk to a closed mind? Your mind is made up - wouldn't want to confuse you with facts. Besides, you've got some papers to write
Do you want a judge to be able to deny you sips of water or ice chips, even as you die? Do you want a judge to forbid you from offering comfort in the form of a spoon full of cool water to your child as he or she dies?