Posted on 05/07/2007 4:16:34 PM PDT by wagglebee
Not Duncan Hunter.
Stinking human refuse (the parents, that is).
Who really wants a president who isn’t really going to be everyone’s president? It brings the disability issue front and center. Candidates should have positions on disability whether it be wounded Veterans or other people with disabilities. A leader should not discriminate against or be indifferent to the disabled community.
Darn right!
Duncan Hunter was the only one who passed with flying colors.
I was so proud of Duncan Hunter. To quote Ronald Reagan, [”err on the side life”] at that moment was just perfect. Even though he got the least time to speak, he made it count.
oops, “err on the side OF life”
Personally, I think the whole issue is a no-win situation for the Republican Party. As someone who has had several relatives starve as a result of stomach and intestinal cancer, I'm glad that no one tried to interfere in the decisions that my family made in those situations. Many people have been in similar situations, and they will not support a candidate or party who seems intent on intruding into these decisions.
One way that candidates could win some support is by saying that we should go back to a time when all life-sustaining measures will be used unless the patient has left specific instructions in a living will. That stand won't be popular, but it would be a stand emphasizing the need for people to take personal responsibility to leave specific, written instructions for what treatments should be done.
Another set of reforms would be these:
1. Money awarded for a patient's care in a civil suit should go only to the patient and only for medical care. Money left over after the patient passes would revert to the courts and not be available to anyone else. This change would eliminate the financial incentive for someone to give up early on a severely disabled patient.These kinds of changes would prevent a repeat of the Terri situation without making voters fear that religious conservatives are going to intrude on difficult family decisions.2. A judge's "finding" on any medical question should be subject to review at every appeal. One of the worst aspects of the Terri case was that Greer's initial "finding" that she was in a permanent vegetative state was never subject to challenge. Judges simply don't have the background to draw final conclusions on medical or technical issues. Their "findings" should always be subject to review at every step in the process.
3. Family members should be able to initiate divorce proceedings on behalf of a disabled person if there are grounds for divorce and the disabled person is unable to initiate divorce proceedings. Even if I believed that Michael Schiavo was completely sincere in everything he was trying to do, his authority to make decisions for Terri should have ended when he began a relationship with another woman. The point of a marriage is that a husband and wife may make decisions for one another because they have a unique relationship. Michael had left that unique relationship with Terri and entered one with another woman. At that point, he shouldn't have been making those decisions for Terri. A court should have granted a divorce and then put Terri in her family's custody.
Bill
Thanks for the ping. Duncan Hunter did stand out, and it was with a very simple statement that values human beings within a very brief time slot.
Go Duncan Hunter!
Bobby and I are wondertwins, my exact thoughts.
That's good to hear.
I like your reform ideas very much. #1 would have immediate results.
Find out the TRUTH about Terris Fight for life
8mm
“”When there’s a question, err on the side of life.”
Duncan Hunter Bump!
The truth comes to light, even when the disingenuous attempt to smoothly cover it up. The real tragedy here is that many of those candidates actually believe themselves to be "pro-Life" while they are only for "life" when they believe that only a "few" people (voters?) were opposed to the cruel starvation of a helpless woman.
Many so-called "pro-lifers" were opposed to saving Terri's life, as a "judge" had "ordered" her removed from food and water to "accomodate" her husband's wishes.
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.
