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.
Yes.
Well, please explain, you fan of death.
I think leaving a guy who has tried to let someone die of sepsis in charge of their medical care is immoral and illegal, but if you want to call it a legal question, feel free.
Go ahead, be bold, make it a declarative statement, I won't object.
Why? We are a nation that tolerates, and even celibrates free speech, even unpopular speech.
In fact, FR was setup to entertain otherwise unpopular speech. Are you saying Jim was out of line to do that?
BTW, have I missed your answer to my post #175?
So far, you haven't objected to murder, you have only excused it.
It was, and will continue to be, a legal question that determines whether someone lives or dies in those situtations. Provison has been in place for decades to avoid just what happened.
Is it moral to disregard the law? And the choice that Terry made through her inactions?
In fact, FR was setup to entertain otherwise unpopular speech. Are you saying Jim was out of line to do that?
Sure troll. We love to enterntain murder like you do.
I’ve explained, never excused it.
Question 175?
Now we are making progress. You say you can explain murder?
No, I told you I would be willing to provide money for your medical care through the Medicaid system. And I've repeatedly made it clear that I consider pulling a tube is murder, so if I were a whiner like yourself I could accuse you of deflecting the issue away from the murder aspect and over to the irrelevant monetary aspect. But I'm not, so I won't.
BTW, about that priceless life stuff: If you were on a tube, had left no living will and someone wanted to kill you, I would stand up for you. You wouldn't stand up for me in the same situation. In fact, as far as I can tell, you'd breathe a sigh of relief that I wouldn't cost Medicaid any more money. Then you'd probably ask Freepers defending my life to send in money for my care, not so I'd actually get care, but in order to try and make them look like hypocrites. So please, don't bother with the silly attempt at a guilt trip.
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.
Wait...you mean, you don't consider a Big Mac to be medical care? A drink is not medical care? How very odd...could it be (I'm just spitballing here) that those things are basic sustenance and not extraordinary measures?
Really? So, should a half-remembered decade-old conversation have the force of a living will, as it did in the Schiavo case? Is that the law we are bound to?
Offer him $60,000 reichsmarks.
I can explain following the laws as they exist.
What aspect of the law was the judge following when he left a clearly unfit guardian in charge of her case? Is it your contention that a person should be stuck with an unfit guardian if they failed to fill out certain paperwork?
That is for a court to decide. Don't like it? Legally binding provision has been made for a different outcome.
Why didn't Terry take advantage of those provisions?
Oops! I put the dollar sign in front of 60,000 reichsmarks.
Answer my guardianship question. What part of the law was the judge following when he left a clearly unfit guaridan in charge?
What following laws? You must of forgot something.
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.