Posted on 09/04/2003 10:09:25 AM PDT by attagirl
Re your other remarks I can only guess at what you mean, but I take it you think we're all a bunch of hysterics--that we're not seeing the proper nuances.
This Terri case is sheer evil with far repercussions to us all. Nor is it a question of conflicting rights.
Such as? Slippery Slope?
You: Such as? Slippery Slope?
Well, you could certainly say that, although I was thinking not culturally but specific to medical care itself. I just mean that this is terrible precedent-setting taking place here. The right to die people will certainly be making sure that Persistent Vegetative State becomes an ever-expanding term.
Then, too, I heard that hospitals can be paid up front by the insurance(I don't know to what extent this is done). So, Mr. Smith goes in for a gall bladder op. The hospital gets paid for that. But while there, complications occur. Every day Mr. Smith is there the hospital loses money.
So to the hospital Mr. Smith becomes an encumbrance. That doesn't bode well for his care.
(The case of Terri, however, is in a class its own, I hope, since it is criminal. But if allowed to stand, it means we stand less of a chance of getting the hospital to act in our interest as patients.)
That is part of a moral argument, as is Slippery Slope. Actually, Persistent Vegetative State is stronger in that it implies effective Brain Death, although perhaps not strict Brain Death. Brain Death has been taken to be equivalent to plain Death, so there is no moral problem according to this accepted definition since the patient is already Dead.
The rule against causing Death is still intact by this approach, and the medical staff must still provide every opportunity for the survival of the patient even while withdrawing life-support. It may be seen as just going through the motions.
What led up to this situation is separate from what must be done now with respect to the patient. If the judgement of an existing condition of Persistent Vegetative State is not acceptible, then this is what needs work, both in law and in moral philosophy.
Is she dead? No. In a coma? No.
But somehow, the State of Floriduh has decreed it so. All the definitions in the world won't help in this case because the books are cooked, the judge has an agenda and Michael doesn't want this dead person revived so she can testify against him!
Please tell me you are not a lawyer!
Is she dead? No. In a coma? No.
But somehow, the State of Floriduh has decreed it so. All the definitions in the world won't help in this case because the books are cooked, the judge has an agenda and Michael doesn't want this dead person revived so she can testify against him!
Please tell me you are not a lawyer!
The problem is that all this notwithstanding, another court, corrupt like this one, will posit its judgment on this case pointing out that Persistive Vegetative State does not mean coma.
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.