Posted on 03/21/2005 2:14:45 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000
There are a few reasons, the biggest one being the HINO ----- Husband In Name Only.
My feeling is that if he wants her dead so badly, in a better world, there should be a way to do it very quickly, not like it is being done now.
Give me an example, please, of a circumstance in which it would be permissible to starve a person to death.
I'm having a hard time with the concept, as you can see.
If you think a compliment is a stupid thing for me to say, then I withdraw it.
It's inhumane to keep food and water away from people who are hungry and thirsty.
It's true that people who are actually dying can lose their appetite. It's also true that Terri has not been terminally ill.
When a person has indicated they do not want any treatment that would prolong their lives, nutrition is withdrawn. It happens every day. And it's completely legal.
Indeed. And they shouldn't be starved to death against their will either. The rub is to honestly discern the patient's will.
The purpose of food and water is to prevent starvation and dehydration. In cases where food and water are either not necessary to prevent starvation/dehydration or will be ineffective at doing so, their administration may be considered "futile". In some such cases, the administration of food and water may cause more pain than their absense; in such cases, they should not even be considered "pallative care".
In Terri's case, however, food and water are necessary to prevent starvation and dehydration. Further, the best way to ease the pain of starvation and dehydration would be to give food and water. Starvation and dehydration of people who are not otherwise dying isn't about minimizing pain--it's about minimizing life.
The evil ones aren't trying to starve/dehydrate Terri because she's dying, but rather because they know full well she isn't.
-------
WHAT response in post # 155????? You must have meant another post. Got it?
You were posing questions in post #155, there WAS NO RESPONSE! Got it, yet?
Not that it will accomplish anything that may allieve the paranoia at large on FR, the U.S. district judge to whom the case has been assigned is a first-rate, clear-thinking and totally honorable gentleman. I've had hearings and served as "of-counsel" at a trial in this judge's courtroom. He is a courteous, serious and conscientious judge of the highest integrity. He will rule on the basis of the law and facts in the record before him irrespective of the screaming irrationallity of the political spin kings and sign bearing, picketing mental midgets around the Tampa federal courthouse.
See # 185. Life support does not mean only medications and breathing machines.
The liberals let this bill pass Congress because they knew it was a wet noodle. Even if, against the odds, it saves Terri's life, it won't substantially impact the issue itself, either politically or legally.
All that has changed is that the Schindlers now have access to the federal courts. As we saw in the 2000 Bush v. Gore litigation, this particular federal circuit does not appear to have a very courageous majority. If a liberal judge gets the case, Terri loses. If a "Republican" gets the case, who knows what will happen. Eventually, the liberal judges will weigh in and bend justice to their bizarre will.
That said, at least Congress did SOMETHING.
The ba$tard is just plain mean. It doesn't matter whether Terri will ever get better. He could cut his ties and just let others care for her. This ain't traditional life support here, it's just plain feeding.
So why not allow oral food/hydration? Even if Terri only had a 1% chance of being able to accept it, it is unlawful to kill someone who can accept oral food/hydration by denying it, and I see no legitimate reason not to give her the chance (with the food/hydration being administered by the parents or someone they trust).
Of course, I can see a perfectly clear and obvious illegitimate reason.
Sorry, I should have said posts 161 and 167.
You're wrong. It's absolutely imperative that Terri never get better (or, more accurately, that Terri's condition is never discovered to be much better than what Michael is claiming).
Michael knows first-hand that his claims about Terri's condition are lies. Felos does too. And Greer has almost certainly been informed by Felos. That's why they're pushing so hard for Terri's murder.
President Bush is doing what he can, and so is the Congress. Terri may pass away, but short of going down there, bayonets brandished, we have to wait this out, as frustrating as that is. And, in the end, let God's will be done.
Point being, those who think that starving her and thirsting her to death via judicial fiat is no big woop, want you to leave, don't give 'em the satisfaction. If anyone's leaving, let it be them.
Can you even accept the possibility that she did tell her husband and others she did not want to be kept alive artificial means?
Discuss amongst yourselves.
His hairline is right above his eyebrows.
And what hair!
Oh and how about those fleshy lips?
Okay, I'm done.
If Michael is subjected to cross-examination which is made public, support for him can almost certainly be shattered. Of course, the media that's been backing him knows this, which is why they need Terri dead first.
Is it the messege or the messenger?
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.