Posted on 04/02/2005 6:21:27 AM PST by rhema
Would you favor it if the government suddenly quit feeding and giving liquids to the political detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay, because they had become an expensive nuisance? Or would you take to the streets to protest against the viciousness of it?
Would you be in favor if one of our state governments decided to starve to death its prisoners because they had become too expensive to house? Or would you be demonstrating at prison gates or in front of the Capitol -- objecting to the inhumanity of it?
If you believe it would be inhumane and vicious to starve terrorists and prison inmates to death, what about that utterly defenseless woman in Florida named Terri Schiavo, who died Thursday?
How can it have been good policy and good humanity to starve an innocent woman to death, while it's bad policy and despicable humanity to do it to prisoners?
Some "no-thinkums" will protest, "It's not the same issue!" Oh, isn't it?
Some years ago the Florida Legislature decided that if someone is being kept alive by "life-support measures," didn't leave a living will, and the family is divided over whether to "pull the plug" or keep the person alive by life-support equipment, the state courts could hold hearings and a judge could decree what shall be done.
Most folks thought it was a good policy.
It has become a disaster, in fact, which is what always happens when men and women think they are God.
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
A lot of states have very strict laws against the mistreatment of animals. By not giving them food and water could involve some serious jail time.
I can't believe this is in the Strib.
Wait, I have to think about this part. Oh, I thought it said it's death row prisoners.
I believe if the public had been made aware of the circumstances of Terri's murder, that she was not terminally ill, or on life support (other than food or water), we would have seen a reversal in the polls - the majority would have been outraged.
This whole act shows how easily sheeple can be manipulated - I completely understand how Hitler was able to do the horrific things he had done. It's very frightening.
I also believe that when Michael Shiavo had that feeding tube put in Terri, years ago, it was his plan then, to use it against her so he could get rid of her. This is a nice little loop hole isn't it?
Have you seen the thread that covers the recent Zogby poll on this subject?
Yes, now that the truth is coming out, people are changing their opinions.
Here's an incredible thing. Last night I was watching The McLaughlin Group & Lawrence (Nutcase) O'Donnell was on. He was completely against Terri's husband taking her life like he did & was in favor of the law changing so that the spouse is not automatically the guardian in such cases. I never thought I would say it, but I agreed with him completely!
The MSM certainly has to take some responsibility for an innocent woman's cold-blooded murder. Yes, I believe there is blood on their hands too.
My guess is that he is distracting from the core moral and issues. As it is, the law does NOT give the spouse guardianship. If it did, then (convicted) abusive husbands would have control over their incapacitated wive's medical care.
I think that causing a (legally incorrect) focus on guardianship is deliberate misdirection. Just like focusing on PVS was, two weeks ago.
Michael Schiavo wants to take the ashes of Terri Schiavo to Pensylvania and bury them some where away from her family.
He is like an old dog with a bone, and he does not want it, but he is afraid that some other dog might want it, so he goes to great trouble to bury it. He has shown that he is a man with a very low character, but now Terri's life is finished by him.
My guess is that he is distracting from the core moral and issues. As it is, the law does NOT give the spouse guardianship. If it did, then (convicted) abusive husbands would have control over their incapacitated wive's medical care.
I think that causing a (legally incorrect) focus on guardianship is deliberate misdirection. Just like focusing on PVS was, two weeks ago.
Geeze. A few glaring omissions of words on my part. "core mroal and legal issues," at the start, and "the law does not automatically give guardianship to the spouse" later on. Of course the spouse can be, and is usually the guardian. But the law is geared to look out for the patient's wishes.
Setting aside the Terri Schiavo case (if you possibly can), why is this a good idea?
And if this is indeed such a good idea for life-and-death decisions, then why not for issues like children, your estate, insurance, etc.? Why should these automatically go your spouse?
Here's the bottom line. We do not need to turn current law on its head because of a few exceptions. If someone, like yourself, has a real problem with your spouse making this decision, if it bothers you that much, then download a Living Will or a Durable Power of Attorney from the internet and name someone else as your guardian.
Need a link?
(Oh, what if it were Terri's parents who wanted to "pull the plug" but Michael said she wanted to live? Still feel the same?)
I know some of you will beat me up, but I'm upset that this Schiavo murder issue, which impacts ALL Americans, is being pre-empted by the current "all pope, all the time" news coverage, pertinent only to one denomination. Evangelical Christians, et al., are not interested in this, but it's consuming the airwaves which could be bringing attention to the ramifications surrounding Terri's murder.
On the other hand, consider the larger number of posters on this forum who evidently heard all the information available on the case (including rumors favorable to both sides) and still chose death for Terri Schiavo. I'm not willing to say the pro-death enthusiasm was motivated primarily by ignorance of the facts.
It is absolutely sickening to see these damn freaks get away with claiming that Terri looked "peaceful" and "euphoric" as she lay wasting away. If Gov. Bush was going to be spineless enough to let her die (he'll never get my vote on a national level, even if he's the party nominee, gutless fool), then he should have at least marched in there with a camera to photograph/record what was going on with her. Let the world see how wonderful a person looks after they are denied food and water for 2 weeks. And don't even get me started on not having a medical examiner from outside the county doing the autopsy.
Now it's complete.
Oh, and the author is not Jonathan Law. It's the Rev. Jonathan Law, a retired pastor. Now that's also complete.
IIRC, the Florida shark attacks also pre-empted the Gary Condit "murder". I bet that upset you also.
What, did you think that the news media actually cares? Oh, and what about the people who actually care about the Pope's condition. They don't count?
"Schiavo murder issue"? Who was "murdered"?
I understand what you are saying. This was the point Lawrence O'Donnell was making, it seemed like. Putting aside this legal issue, I think what I was agreeing with was his opinion that Terri was murdered by her husband. There are so many legal issues that all came together to work against Terri.
In the absence of a living will, I don't think a spouse's opinion should be 100% & her blood family's not count for anything.
But this is really another issue than what is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the Terri Schiavo case. Without a directive from Terri herself in writing, there was no reason to believe she would have wanted to be put to death this way for simply being disabled. NO way do I believe this, or that she would have wanted her family treated this way. Total disregard for her wishes by the courts. This woman was murdered in broad daylight & now I want to know what I can do to stop this.
If it is true, that this is happening all over, shouldn't someone at least investigate this?
This passage does a good job defining what is life support but, as I understand it, Fla Law has been expanded to include things like feeding tubes into the category of 'Life support' measures.
I haven't seen this analogy brought up on FR yet but consider the case where, instead of being unable to ingest food through her mouth (And there IS doubt about whether this was so), Terri had sustained an injury such that she was unable to breath through nasal or oral openings and thus required a tube to get air into what are otherwise normally functioning lungs. Would the same actions have been taken - i.e. Remove the air tube and immediately suffocate her? Would this have been acceptable? Very probably not, yet it is really no different than what was done in denying food and water to her.
And if removal of an air tube is possible, what do we do about people who need oxygen enhancement via artificial means and who happen to be unfortunate enough to be unable to communicate due to brain damage? Do we remove these 'Devices' and allow them to wheeze their way into the afterlife?
Just some thoughts I've been having about what happened to an innocent, helpless woman on the whim of her husband who was aided and abetted by terrible law, a bad judge and an insane attorney.
I'm more concerned about what's going on behind the screnes while all these other stories, the Pope, Shiavo, Micheal Jackson, and Brittainy Speers pregnacy hog the front pages.
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.