Posted on 04/03/2005 2:09:33 PM PDT by FairOpinion
In Florida, the brother of 83 year-old stroke patient Marjorie Nighbert, decided to cut off her tube feeding, allegedly because of the terms contained in her advanced directive. Marjorie was not unconscious. During her starvation, she specifically asked nurses for food. This was so upsetting to one nurse that she blew the whistle. Enter the court, where, after a hurried investigation, it was determined that Marjorie was not medically competent to retract her advanced directive (in other words, to ask for the "treatment" of food). Thus, even though she had asked to be fed, the starvation was allowed to continue. Ms. Nighbert died on April 5, 1995.
This is the following link that was discussing the Robert Wendland case (a mirror twin of Terri's case) before Judge Bob W. McNatt (Calif) ruled for life.
http://www.chninternational.com/chninfo4.htm
and the following article is the final ruling:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/WendlandToLive.html
at the end of the CHN article are the names of books dealing with this slippery slope that is fast changing from the 'right to die" to "the duty to die."
I read that bigamy - for some odd reason - is not against the law in Florida - but that adultery is.
Michael was not committing bigamy - but he was an adulterer - so why didn't the judge enforce the law (rhetoric - not need to answer. I realize he would have had to've been charged first - not that that would've done any good - his was too well connected...
When did it become legal in California?
It must've been since 1997?
See the Wendland case - a mirror of Terri's - and the judges decision:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/WendlandToLive.html
AMEN
My heart goes out to you. Yours is not an easy path - in which you were given no choice.
And as your illness progresses, your mind will remain fully active.
I don't believe anyone else - other than someone with Friedreich's ataxia - has a right to judge what you will or wont, eventually do.
Myself, included in my Living Will will be the instructions :"Do not kill by starvation>"
May blessings unexpected come your way...and peace
Funny, but it hasn't so far.
I consider what I want a priority over my life.
I don't claim the right to kill anyone but myself or a loved one who has asked me to.
I don't claim the right for the government to kill anyone without trial for a capital crime.
I have the right not to be killed without my permission, just as I have the right not to be in the Army without my permission, and like the Army, I have the right to volunteer.
I have this right and will keep it because I can and will fight for it, something the Schiavo weenies hadn't the guts to do. The govt. is free to try me for my transgressions after the fact, though trying the dead went out of fashion in the middle ages.
A simple breaking of the law and possible punishment is something that happens thousands of times a day. It is what the law is designed to deal with.
The Schiavo fans, being all mouth, preferred to try to undermine the entire judicial system to accomplish what they had not the stones to attempt.
So9
Who is more qualified to judge the authenticy of CBS's "National Guard" memos--one of CBS's "experts", or a layperson like buckhead?
For that matter, who's more qualified to judge the quality of the emperor's raiment--his high advisers and nobles, or an ordinary uneducated boy?
A PVS diagnosis is a 'negative' diagnosis, meaning that it cannot be proven--merely disproven. Likewise with the authenticity of documents. Consequently, I would not trust a layperson's judgement that a particular person is PVS, or that a particular document is authentic, but I see no reason to doubt the ability of laypeople's judgements that particular subjects are not PVS, or that particular documents are clearly fake.
"During her starvation, she specifically asked nurses for food. Enter the court...it was determined that Marjorie was not medically competent to retract her advanced directive (in other words, to ask for the "treatment" of food). Thus, even though she had asked to be fed, the starvation was allowed to continue. "
This is HORRIBLE! Thanks for posting it. How much of this is going on that never makes the news!
I guess we better make advanced directive and spell out that nobody better stop feeding us or giving us water!
"Myself, included in my Living Will will be the instructions :"Do not kill by starvation>"
====
You better include "do not kill by dehydration" too, or else they'll feed you sawdust and let you die of thirst.
I suspect it's happening everyday - but unless there's someone to fight for them - for years and have the money to do so - we wont hear about them.
We only knew about Terri because her parents, bless them, would not let them murder her without the last ounce of fighting. There was another high profile case in 1997 in California - the state of the patient was a near mirror image to Terri - and the wife wanted to stop feeding - the mother didn't. There was a court battle that made news across the country, TV, Internet, etc. The Judge who made the life or death decision is a 30+ year friend of mine. A finer, more intelligent and fairer man I have never known. go to the following link to see what he said about his decision:
http://www.angelfire.com/ca7/robertsangels/WendlandToLive.html
ACtually - since the FDA okays sawdust as a legal ingredient for bread - which can then be 'truthfully" listed as "fibre" - you might just be right! (Ever wonder why some breads taste like sawdust? :O)
"To be a bigamist he would had to marry ..shacking-up is NOT marriage...whether you like it or not..."
When Jesus met the woman at the well, he asked her where was her husband, She replied that she had no husband. Jesus told her she had 5 husbands. I guess Jesus didn't know the rules. Glad you informed us.
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.