It all began here, ROE v. WADE. Decided January 22, 1973.
Posted on 04/07/2005 5:34:06 PM PDT by News Hunter
Edited on 04/07/2005 5:39:05 PM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
Well granted all the legal i's may be dotted and t's may be crossed, but I don't think the nephew anticipated that they'd get two murderers among the panel of doctors. Good grief, the lady asked not to be murdered.
That happened, FUR SHUR, the day Mikey took it to court.
All the rest is history ~ but the guv'mnt got involved on that day and it was Mikey got the ball rolling.
What's that got to do with the Schindlers anyway?
Frequently you will find an element of greed or romance in that sort of thing (or terminal stupidity on the part of the judge).
A question that requires an answer. One answer may be that the judge did not see it as an ex-parte hearing, dealing with the granddaughter who had cared for granny for 10 years, and not having been told there were other parties to the contest. Time should bring this information out.
This guy's a hack isn't he?
"The dehydration is being done in defiance of Magouirk's specific wishes, which she set down in a 'living will,'"
OK, have we gone far enough yet? Can some of the "Pull Terri's tube" crowd come around and tell us why this is kosher?
ProLife Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my ProLife Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
My understanding is that the granddaughter had the power of attorney but not the authorization to make medical decisions. According to that state that authorization belongs to the closest relative which is her sister. The sister and a nephew immediately attempted to get her to a hospital but Judge Boyd ignored the law and the living will and would not allow them to take care of Mae.
Well I hate to imply anything but wars have been fought over less.
Thanks!
I'm "type 'A'" that way. It really bugs me when I mess up.. :-}
BTTT! you have to go to www.glennbeck.com and listen to the free audio stream of the interview with this woman's nephew.
If you had wanted to save some time, you could've just posted the above instead of such a long-winded dodge.
It is interesting how no self-proclaimed "turkey" has yet been able to honestly answer the question "Was it wrong to kill Terri Shiavo?"
You remain disingenuous, even if I spelled it wrong the first time.
It's possible that he is a Democratic political operative. Much has been made of the Republicans and "right wing" radio politicizing end of life issues. Would not surprise me if Glen Beck was getting duped to prolong MSM criticim of the Republicans. A Ken Mullinax is a former spokesman for Democratic hopeful Bill Fuller in Alabama. link
Better link.
http://www.nbc13.com/news/3874542/detail.html
I was on the other side of the Shaivo case, but this case is disturbing.
You believe there was "clear and pertinent information" that Terri wanted to be starved to death? What if this woman didn't have a living will? Which side would you have been on then?
So you're saying the lady isn't being starved/dehydrated? Why would he include the part about having gotten the tube back in but because the eye drops are not on the ruling they aren't giving her those? (I thought that was what he said.) That just seems a little too picky and odd a detail for a conspiracy to think to include.
I just can't believe the people in denial over this: Euthanasia IS here - Terri just brought it to the forefront.
http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=2577
"In 1984, while working as charge nurse in the intensive care unit, a 20-year-old man asked, "Can you give my mother enough morphine to let her sleep away?" I was horrified. "I can not kill your mother," I responded. That was only the beginning. Recently, an 80-year-old was admitted to the emergency room and the physician said, "LET'S DEHYDRATE HER"; one more patient was sentenced to die in hospice with NO TERMINAL DIAGNOSIS and once again, THE LIVING WILL determined the death of a 70-year-old man regardless of how he pleaded to live. I can no longer remain silent...."
Click link above to read more.
Yeah, it's all an aberration... Nazi-like tactics could NEVER surface again. Uhuh... never.
(those who do not learn from history....)
It all began here, ROE v. WADE. Decided January 22, 1973.
I saw this earlier and it made me physically ill. This is just so disgusting. Our judicial system is reprehensible!
Maybe, if grandma can kill someone before she gets too weak in the hospice, she can lose this death sentence. God knows she'll get plenty of sympathy and food and water for 20 more years if she can just become a murderer.
It just seems far fetched (yeah I looked at the story). In the interview he admitted he felt sorry for Terri but... it was right toward the beginning - didn't seem to think it was a widespread practice.
But we'll see. Even if he is pulling everyone's leg, it's just gonna make them look stupid. What an obscene thing to pull a prank about. The real practice IS still occurring.
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.