Philly Battle Echoes Schiavo Case

Fox News ^

[Jotmo]

DOYLESTOWN, Pa. — A judge temporarily barred a Philadelphia woman from prolonging her husband's life with a feeding tube, which his daughter claims is contrary to his wishes.

Like the federal court battle over the removal of Terri Schiavo's (search) feeding tube in Florida, the Bucks County Court case of Alzheimer's disease victim John P. King Jr. (search) is complicated by disagreement among family members.

[Jotmo]

He goes another one. This one shouldn't be in court, but it is. There is a living will. End of story. So why is it being put on trial anyway? I fear this is just the beginning of a flood of these kinds of cases hitting the media.

[Hildy]

You got it. You can't even know that your wishes will be respected after your gone now. You asked for it. Do you really want everybody to be kept alive no matter what condition they are in? If the answer's yes, then accept you will be paying 75% of your income to taxes, because that's what it will cost.

[pa mom]

ping

[goldstategop]

In this case, the courts are overruling the wishes of the spouse and following those of the daughter. Oy! Anything to open a floodgate of killings of the helpless.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Nachum]

Another judge playing God. Another relative arguing for death.

Welcome to the slippery slope.

[truthseeker2]

If there is a living will....aren't we supposed to honor the patient's wishes? Which is it? Honor the written directive? Believe someone else just because they say so? Which direction is the wind blowing?

I was a little irritated when I saw posts using terms like "Culture of Death", but now I'm beginning to wonder.

[tophat9000]

A judge temporarily barred a Philadelphia woman from prolonging her husband's life with a feeding tube, which his daughter claims is contrary to his wishes.

But in this case it the spouse wishes are being stopped....so in both case in not the spouse wishes that rules but wanting them to die that rules

[NonValueAdded]

The Pa. case is quite different due to the presence of the living will.

[Phantom Lord]

In this case, the courts are overruling the wishes of the spouse and following those of the daughter. Oy! Anything to open a floodgate of killings of the helpless

The guy has a living will saying he should NOT be kept alive. That should be the end of it. Period. But for some reason, the wife is doing the OPPOSITE of what her husband wanted. The judge should rule in favor of the man and let him die.

[Phantom Lord]

Another judge playing God. Another relative arguing for death.

Welcome to the slippery slope.

The guy has a living will stating his wishes. Should the judge over rule the man and force him to live? If so, should all living wills with a DNR or other such directive be ruled invalid?

[ex 98C MI Dude]

This does not echo the Schiavo case at all. In this case, the man signed a living will, stating that he specifically didn't want a feeding tube or hydration. In the Schiavo case, no such documentation exists.

This shouldn't be in court. His wishes are clear, convincing, and well documented. Let him go.

[TASMANIANRED]

[jschald]

yes its different but what if he changed his mind later? or what if he wrote that in the beginning of his alzheimers and his wife says he didn't mean it? you see how this stuff can just go on and on and on? should we err on the side of life in all alzheimer's cases because hey, ya never know?

you can always find some reason to argue for how you think someone else should be treated. that is why each state has dealt with these issues over years and years of study, debate and legislation. and the court's follow those laws and rule best they can. and then when some people don't like how they apply the law they were given by the lawmakers, they get death threats. incredible.

[Darnright]

>"The issue is what John P. King Jr. wants. That is clear by the terms of his living will," Masiuk said.<

Then his wishes should be respected. I hope his daughter can come to terms with this, and not blame her poor mother.

It's never, ever easy to watch someone you love die. Been there, done that.

[goldstategop]

If he does have a living will of course he should not receive extraordinary measures to keep him alive when his time comes. I am still opposed as a matter of principle to with holding food and water from any one. Heroic measures no, making sure someone is kept is nourished, keep doing it. Someone may specify what's to happen at the end of their life in in a living will but no one has the right to hasten death.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[pa mom]

The difference is that there is written directive.

The spouse is trying to overturn that directive.

The child is trying to uphold it.

[tophat9000]

If a living will is in place then that rules ... however if the man can still eat with out a feeding tube he still should be provided food and water....

[tallhappy]

Though the living will stated King's opposition to a feeding tube in the event of permanent unconsciousness, it also named Ann King as her husband's surrogate, with the power to carry out his wishes if he is "unable or incompetent to make or express a decision."

End of story.

Wife's wishes.

Funny how in Schiavo case anything the husband says goes. In this case spouse is ignored.

Common denominator: starve people.

[Phantom Lord]

If a living will is in place then that rules ... however if the man can still eat with out a feeding tube he still should be provided food and water....

So if the living will states he should not be given food and water then the living will should be rejected?