Posted on 12/19/2007 5:00:27 AM PST by paulsy
I believe you mean well, and it appears you are young and fairly new at this topic. You may want to consider a few points before your words cause people to jump down your throat. As in Texas with the Futile Care law, and in Florida and many other places, the government is a cluster of little gods deciding who should live and who shall die, and whether their quality of life stands up to arbitrary standards. They use terms to ease the thought process of casual readers, and to lull them into a state of comfort.
In this case, they have already convinced you they have the right to remove life support. Sounds warm and fuzzy, but in Terri Schiavo’s case, these gods judged that food and water is life support, just like your noontime sandwich. Then they can say you are a vegetable PVS and most will believe it, as in Terri who was far from that state. And if you are laying there on the table, and have some useful or valuable parts and giblets, well, you may find they have a new term for you, brain dead, and let the harvest begin. No sedatives or aspirins, don’t you know, as that might upset the purity of the heart you are about to donate.
Pro life encompasses that, just like confronting abortion and other inroads of malicious leaders to control the life of individuals. It is a conservative position central to philosophy of FreeRepublic. Read up a bit.
Just sayin...
There is a lot to ponder.
The stunning 2 week shortness of this evaluation and it already being decided in a court.
Is he brain dead? Or in a vegetative state? Can he breathe on his own like Terri Schiavo?
If he’s brain dead are the family being unreasonable?
How can a court order doctors to break a hypocratic oath except under a socialist (fascist) medical system.
Which is a major reason not to have nationalized health care.
Another perfect example of a government run health care system. They pay the bill so they decide who gets or does not get care and the family’s wishes be damned.
After two weeks???? It would be a different story if he were declared brain dead, but just "the doctors don't think he will recover" is not nearly enough (not that I think anything short of that could be) for the court to order removal from life support.
At the end of September my cousin suffered a massive stroke during surgery and the doctors didn't expect her to survive. After about two weeks they told my aunt & uncle that she would go into cardiac arrest from the brain swelling and they wanted them to sign a DNR. They refused.
It is now almost 3 months later. In that time she has been weaned from a respirator, has partial movent in her limbs and just last week she spoke for the first time since the stroke.
Doctors are not God and two weeks is a ridiculously short period of time to decide to give up hope.
marinamuffy
Morally speaking, the decision belongs to whomever pays the bills. And that's not the family in this case--unless they have the means and the will to fund the necessary care.
Families decide every day to kill their brain injured relatives. No one, not even family, should be deciding to kill an innocent person.
I respectfully disagree. Sometimes, it is entirely appropriate that a family makes the hard choice.
Personally, I don't think it's fair for someone to ask their family to make that choice, so I have a living will with very clear instructions for such a possibility. That way the decision isn't theirs, but mine, and I hope if it comes to pass that makes a difference to them, relieving them of any feelings of guilt.
But if I hadn't a living will, I'd trust my wife to make the right choice for me.
Wrong. It is the life of a human being. The right to life was given by God and cannot be taken by the governments instituted among men except for a capital offense. Failure to pay bills is not a capital offense.
He’s neither brain dead nor in a vegetative state. He’s in a coma. He’s been in a coma for two weeks. As such, it’s likely that he’s on a respirator and feeding tube.
If they remove the respirator, he might start breathing on his own. But if he can’t breathe well enough, he could die a horribly painful death, as his cells beg for oxygen throughout his body. It’s like every inch of your body having a charlie horse at the same time. The intensity grows and grows. You can’t cry out, so it looks peaceful. This is a death chosen for the witnesses, not the victim.
If he survives the suffocation, then comes starvation/dehydration. This is a death chosen for witnesses who enjoy torture. I can’t bear to describe it. If you have the stomach for it, there are web sites with descriptions of it. There are even photos, but they’re too graphic for FR. Some of the old-timers here could probably help you find it.
Young, healthy people who have never known a moment of adversity, often think they would prefer death over a difficult challenge. But when it comes down to the wire, everybody fights for that last breath, no matter how difficult, or even painful.
Sorry, that’s the fruits of decades-long liberalism, Australian-style. It’s all about the MONEY, not the life.
You are absolutely right. People though say they prefer death in such circumstances for “others”.
Refusal to pay for someone else's medical care is not murder. Forcing someone to do so is theft. That's why we conservatives oppose nationalized health care.
Your right to life requires that others don't kill you. It does not require they pay for your cancer treatment, nor that they pay your rent or grocery bills.
Life is a gift from God.
“We’re going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” - HRC
even if it is theft, it is not a capital offense.
“but i also think that the family should let go.”
maybe, but it’s now our choice - certainly shouldn’t be the Australian government’s choice, in collusion with the attending (government) doctors.
also, i listened to the family on the radio, after the court hearing, and they made a pretty good case, not presented in the written articles, of doctors they’d talked to during the afternoon who said there was a chance of recovery - NEUROLOGISTS rather than an anesthesiologist as cited by the “prosecuting” doctors and relied upon as “evidence of futility” by the court here.
Regardless, it shouldn’t even be considered by a government.
Sadly, a look at the web site front page of the Sydney Morning Herald shows me that this new Labor government in Australia cares far more for whales than human beings. Can’t say I’m surprised.
“but i also think that the family should let go.”
yep. as my brother succinctly wrote to me, “when left wingers run things, life gets cheap.”
anyhow, just woke up, running out door to catch a plane so i don’t know latest news on this, but i hope people are listening. it’s quite lame and the forces underlying it are frightening - almost as frightening as the lack of coverage the media is giving it here.
And like all gifts, it is ours to use.
If I am incapacitated, if I have substantial brain-damage, then I want my family to let me go. I cannot believe that God wants them to use all medical means to keep my body, this shell, alive.
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.