Posted on 01/29/2006 10:06:22 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Or go to present day Holland.
>>>
All the same.
I don't know of a better solution. I agree it's not a pleasant thought if she was conscious, but it was, in fact her complete lack of consciousness that led to this. If she were conscious we would not be having this debate. I don't honestly believe she had the consciousness to want for food, or water.
You can say that again.
If Terri Schiavo's parents and supporters honestly believed that she did not consent to being put to death, should they have been allowed to take her by force, without government interference, from the hospital and the people who were killing her?
Definiton of zealot: someone who believes starving someone to death is wrong, especially when her family is opposed and wants to take care of her.
Definition of logical person: someone who thinks judges can never make mistakes, and that an estranged husband should be believed when he asserts "his wife's" wishes
Please see my question in #164.
I agree that statutes can certainly make things worse.
In Terri's case, the situation was made worse by the 1999 Florida statute that changed feeding by a tube from "ordinary" care to "medical treatment."
You two demonstrate an incredible degree of valor in confronting the MS crowd. ;-)
Keepig someone alive against their will.
See my question in #164.
Can you answer my question in #164?
Americans do not want the government involved in such end-of-life decisions.
You can say that again.
>>
If you want to lie.
Well, I'm about to resign for the evening.
I'm interested in these issues from a much more general point of view... and the debate inevitably centers on Terri. We can't forever argue this whole issue as merely Schindler versus Schiavo.
Let's drop the silly pretense that you don't.
Cease ranting and respond to the specific question I posed.
Government shouldn't have any say in what a persons whishes are as far as supporting or ending their life.
My father killed himself by refusing to eat or drink anything because he wanted out because his knees no longer functioned and he couldn't function on his own.
It was his decision, he was of sound mind and didn't have any illnesses and it wasn't anyones place in the family to stop him or object.
He was 92, stated his case and asked that no one intervene in his demise.
Michael dragged the government (Greer) into the case.
Greer overstepped his jurisdiction, by ordering that Terri receive nothing to eat or drink.
Greer did not simply grant Michael Schiavo the discretion to remove nutrition and hydration from Terri. Greer ORDERED him to do it. Second, the order goes beyond removal of the feeding tube and includes food and hydration by natural means....Greer exceeded his authority under Florida law. By ordering Michael to have the tube removed, Greer eliminated the exercise of discretion by the guardian and exercised it himself. Greer eliminated any exercise of discretion by Michael to change his mind. In fact, if he did change his mind, Schiavo would have had to file a motion asking Greer to rescind his order.
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.