Posted on 06/29/2007 8:23:46 AM PDT by Bladerunnuh
On May 30, Ramirez was part of a serious car accident where he suffered multiple injuries and was put into a comatose state. He was placed onto feeding tubes where he received nourishment and water.
Ten days later, the man’s wife, Rebecca, 33, asked doctors to pull him from the tubes after they explained that the accident would probably leave the man blind or in vegetative state.
For five days, the hospital withheld sustenance from the injured man, but restored the tubes after the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) – an Ariz.-based Christian law firm – filed a lawsuit on behalf of the rest of Ramirez family.
On Tuesday, a settlement was reached in which all decision-making for the patient will move from wife Rebecca to a court-appointed guardian. The man will also be moved to a rehabilitation center.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianpost.com ...
Yep, and hide her dirty little secret with him.
So glad he’s doing better and has a family who will fight for him!
Why would "blind" compare to "vegetative state"?
This woman was cheating on her husband and having a heated argument with him about her infidelity when she opened the door of the moving vehicle they were in and distracted him, causing the crash that injured him.
Yet the law's default position says she had the right to make his medical decisions for him.
Then there is another question of conflict of interest: how does someone who stands to gain insurance and survivor benefits from someone's death get to choose whether they live or die?
My medical directive requires any life-ending decision to be made in consultation with a Roman Catholic moral theologian who is a member of Opus Dei.
My wife and I agree that these decisions should be made by someone who is knowledgeable, has emotional distance and stands to gain or lose nothing from my demise.
Good lord, I can only imagine how that made all of you feel, especially him. What GHOULS.
Isn’t anyone troubled that an apparently unrelated interest group can somehow intervene in a someone’s private medical care? It’s one thing for the government to try to stop someone from being removed from life support, but some private orginazation with its own agenda? Will my husband have to fight off challenges from this group or, say, the Muslim Law Society, if he decides to take me off life support some day? That makes me very uncomfortable. I trust him over some group of agenda-driven strangers. I’d like to know more about how this group got standing to intervene.
Because his family asked them to, i.e., mother, father, siblings - that kind of family.
My instructions are that both my son (who is a medical professional) and my husband are to make the decisions jointly. I suppose they could get in cahoots, but it seems unlikely as I know my son’s devotion to saving life.
Yeah. Put down like a dog by Democrats, the decision of Democrats defended by Democrats...Terri Schiavo's fate can be the fate of ANYONE in this country as soon as Nazi style "universal health care" is implimented by a Democrat president. While the "rel conservative" bots sit there at their keyboard with their bong beside them, fingers in their ears, chanting "bordersbordersbordersbordersborders" and allow it to happen without complaint.
Why would anyone want to live in a vegetative state? Why would anyone want to live blind? Or if you have pimples? sarcasm on
Thank you. I didn’t know the circumstances. Yes, you are entirely correct, then. She should not be the sole voice in this decision because there is clearly a conflict of interest. You and your wife have come to a wise decision about these things. Thank you for clarifying the details for me.
This sounds much too much like the Terri Shiavo case to me, at least about how the spouse had or may have had a hand in the circumstances surrounding the patient’s condition and the conflict of interest regarding the insurance payout.
No it's not. Although there may be exceptions from time to time. I swear, if it's looking like one has to hired armed guards to be around to keep the 'helpful' ghouls from interfering in family affairs.
When it's my time to go, it's my time to go. And that decision will be left to my wife. No one else, not a court, and definitely not a 'helpful' ghoul trying to prove some life deal.
I suspect that divorce proceedings will be starting soon.
>>Ten days later, the man’s wife, Rebecca, 33, asked doctors to pull him from the tubes after they explained that the accident would probably leave the man blind or in vegetative state.<<
Yeah. “Blind” doesn’t seem like a reasonable standard to pull the plug. Brain dead with no chance of recovery is what I’d look for.
I recall a Drew Carey skit when he was doing stand-up comedy that involved him hooked up to life saving apparatus. He said to never unplug him because for all we know being in a coma might be best you've ever felt in your life.
Good point. Hope you realize I was being sarcastic!
There's a BIG difference in it being your "time to go", and being MURDERED by being starved & dehydraded to death!
HA! There's people that medicine would say it's their time to go and doctors with degrees would say it's may be the patient's time to go. But ghouls claim those people were being 'murdered'. I've had elderly in my family that their bodies began to shut down just from being old. The tubes, etc. were pulled and it took a few days for them to finally pass on. And there were one or two (outside of the immediate family) that said they should have been kept on life support. Let me put it to you in terms you may can understand.
IT...IS...NONE...OF...YOUR...D#MN....BUSINESS.
That clear enough for you? Quit bugging into other people's lives you're not related to and think you know better because you read some an opinion by a 'doctor' on the internet. If you weren't there, if you weren't in that hospital room, move along.
Isn’t anyone troubled that an apparently unrelated interest group can somehow intervene in a someone’s private medical care?
THE GROUP GOT STANDING BECASUE THE VICTIM’S SISTER ASKED THEM TOO. EUTHANASIA DONE BY A FAMILY MEMBER IS STILL A CRIME. ALL FAMILY MEMEBERS ARE NOT TRUSTWORTHY. ANYONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HELP SOMEONE IN DANGER.
HAD THE WIFE HER WISHES THIS GUY WOULD BE DEAD.
THAT'S understandable - you can't keep "nourshing" when the body won't process any more. BUT, Terri WAS NOT dying, she was just disabled - not dying, not vegatative, not comatose - D-I-S-A-B-L-E-D!!! I saw a video of her laughing with her father - she KNEW what he was talking about. I saw another one, and she was responding to her mother. And, even if she was vegatative or in a coma - you DO NOT starve a person to death! THAT'S MURDER!!! When you take away food and water from someone that IS NOT dying and refuse to let them eat, what do YOU call it???? I don't understand from where YOU'RE coming. It's just plain ole common sense. I didn't have to be in that room to know that. A healthy, tho disabled, person has food taken away from her and guess what. She's going to die! I'm quite passionate about this, and I will NEVER forget - That a court in the United States of America orders a woman to be starved and dehydrated TO DEATH!
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.