Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Michael Hichborn of American Life League, 1-540-226-9178
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, released the following statement concerning an order by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscockon to give guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, who wants to remove Lauren's feeding tube.
Lauren is 23 years of age and, due to a heroin overdose, is now in a persistent vegetative state. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting the birth of her baby and reports indicate that she was kept alive to allow her to give birth, which she did in February of last year. Her daughter is now about to celebrate her first birthday, but Lauren may never have another birthday.
Of interest is the fact that, during the pregnancy, Lauren relied on feeding tubes and a breathing machine to keep her alive. Today Lauren has a feeding tube only. But there is a struggle going on regarding whether or not Lauren will live or die.
Lauren's case is more than a sad commentary on the plight of a family battling over what each of the opponents believes would be in her best interest. Her story is a testimony to the growing philosophy in this country that some, because of their condition, are better off dead than alive.
Like Terri Schiavo before her, Lauren is not dying nor is she in a terminal condition. She has been diagnosed as someone in a persistent vegetative state, someone who is very much alive but locked in her body and unable to express her desires to anyone. The only thing Lauren is relying on is a feeding tube without which she will starve to death. Lauren's mother, who is Laurens guardian, wants the feeding tube removed while Lauren's father is fighting to keep Lauren alive.
This family is in our prayers. We hope that, in the interest of respecting Lauren's dignity as a human being whose future improvement or lack thereof is known only to God, the court will listen carefully to those who argue in favor of Lauren's right to life. It is a tragedy beyond description when any human beings fate rests solely on the subjective opinion of others, some of whom truly believe that patients like Lauren have no quality of life and therefore are better off dead.
We are a nation of laws.
Laws are comprised of fine points and details.
Terry chose a husband poorly, and compounded it by not making certain that the laws could protect her in the situation that occured.
Terris's feeding cost 8 dollars a day. And you are still stupid or superior enough to want to kill her.
You'll need to ask that of the person who made that statement.
Eight bucks a day? That’s sure not a whole lot of reichsmarks!
Yeah, it is all Terrr's fault for getting herself murdered.
Here's the question again:
Really? Why not [be involved in a smothering] if it's a noble and fiscally responsible gesture?
Of course not, and neither should have Terry.
We both had a choice in the matter, she chose poorly.
Clarify what you are searching for.
I'm still waiting for Balding Eagle to answer my question in post 199 about whether it was proper for a court to allow Schiavo to remain as guardian. Strange that he wanted an immediate answer to his earler financial query but has gone silent when we get to the root of the Schiavo case.
Can you think of a reason that you should be on FreeRepulic or any other forum for that matter?
Why didn’t you answer the question about the court? Why was it proper for a court to leave someone in the position of guardian who was a harmful “choice” for the person being cared for?
If it's alright to starve someone in order to save money, why isn't it OK to smother someone to save money? Why wouldn't you be involved in smothering someone to save the money involve din their care?
Unfortunately, as with a lot of people, she allowed herself to get in a postion where her own death was the most likely outcome.
Think of a person walking through a really bad part of town, at night, without taking the gun offered them for free.
Forget about the federal programs. Federal programs will not be able to pay for all who need care, nor God help us should they try to. They are making a straw man argument though, because if we ever succeed in getting the government out of health care - health care would be less expensive and charitable organizations like pro life groups would pick up the tab.
Now back to the real argument, is it morally justifiable to withhold food from the disabled for any reason? Answer: NO.
Oh, and why haven’t you answered the food question? When you stop at McDonalds, do you bill your health insurance? If not, why not?
Exactly.
Are you asking for my legal answer, or a answer based on morality?
Actually, there are so many questions being asked, (which is also a common techique used by the Left) that it isn’t possible for me to answer them all, AND enjoy the movie we’re watching.
Also, that’s a confusing question.It should seem obvious that I don’t bill the company, but you’ll have to explain what the obscure point is you’re trying to make.
What i really think is going on is deflection. Deflecting from the fact you’re only willing to provide $6 for a priceless life.
Seems that some lives are more ‘priceless’ than others.
Think of a person walking through a really bad part of town, at night, without taking the gun offered them for free.
I have no doubt that nobody here would not think of you as a creep.
Because we are a nation of laws, that's why. Seems obvious.
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.