Posted on 09/28/2002 6:04:39 PM PDT by bonesmccoy
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:18:34 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Usually when varicella is this bad, it is associated with immunocompromise. Geriatric patients can be compromised in this fashion. Other diagnoses are purely speculative. I take on face value the comments from the politicians (that it was a case of varicella pneumonia). The fact we can read into this deeper was probably not intended by the Hawaii state Democratic Party.
Such as what - a decent state economy?
voting for the dead subverts not helps democracy.
If the Democrats were smart, they could have a write-in campaign for their candidate of choice. Or they could let the Repub try for 2 years, it not like it will give them the plague ... but they are not, which is why they'd fall for the 'vote the dead in' ploy - too lazy to do it right in one election, so they waste one.
by itself, it is not a big deal, but what REEKS is the stench of political opportunism and grandstanding from those who lied before the primary election about her true status. She was unfit to serve well before the sept 21 primary. There WAS a Democrat primary opponent, but the "powers" didnt want that. So they lied and pretended she would get better even though she was terminally ill and probably in a coma by that time.
I'd like to know what you think really happened here.
It is not unusual for a family to request modesty and privacy. It is unusual for a sitting Congresswoman, who is running for re-election, to remain in a campaign in her circumstance.
This story really comes down to a matter of family privacy rights, the public right to vote, and the party's right to nominate.
There appear to be some procedural irregularities if one assumes that her prognosis was poor several weeks ago. From the rapidity of the announcement by Hawaii state democratic party leadership on Friday and her death within 24 hours, one should surmise that the party leadership either did not know that Mrs. Mink was this ill, or that they did know and simply chose not to say. This depends on the degree of contact between the physicians and Mr. Mink on one hand (to inform the Mink's of her condition realistically); and upon the degree of communication between the Mink family and the Hawaii Democratic Party on the other hand (to inform the public of her condition). If in fact, Straub physicians had notification of brain death prior to a certain date, then there would be reason to investigate the physicians and hospital for maintaining life support when the patient was already clinically brain dead. On the other hand, if the patient was not clinically brain dead, the definition of death does not apply in a legalistic sense. So, there is no merit to the accusation of a "cover-up".
The issue is really one of how much did the physicians know and when did they know it. If the physicians were telling the truth to the family, there is no ethical obligation on the family's behalf to discuss these issues publicly. So, the issue is complex and unless someone subpoenas her medical records (which will look really awful for the GOP to do), we will never know the facts. In fact, even if someone did subpoena the records, the process would take so long that the facts could be "restated" prior to release of her medical chart.
This is all very ghoulish and I am rather uncomfortable with this thread at this point. The poor woman is dead. GOP members respect her service to our nation, as President Bush has already remarked.
On the other hand, I'm really getting sick and tired of seeing the Democrats running candidates who are dead.
You illustration is nonsense because FDR couldn't qualify in the first place. Mink wasn't dead or incapacitated when she was placed on the ballot. Who gets onto a ballot and who remains on a ballot are state issues. Most states limit changes to ballots within a certain time period before the election. In this case, the Democrats would be stupid to start a write in campaign. Mink is going to win anyway, dead or alive, so they might as well use the election to prevent the GOP from winning, however slim that is, and then win the special election. Is it political? Sure it is. But it's legal and if the GOP was in the same position they would use the same strategy. They would be stupid to do otherwise.
If so, then enlarge the betting on possibilities of social security fraud, medical ethics violations, conspiracy, civil rights violations....
Of course, the chance of prosecution is somewhere between zero and zip.
The chance of an investigation is between nada and nil.
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.