Posted on 03/24/2005 7:22:09 AM PST by ConservativeMan55
Edited on 03/24/2005 7:43:21 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Mod note: Calls for violence will result in suspensions
Michael Schiavo has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking them to stay out of the case.
Ok...with her feeding tube removed, why can't a medical professional attempt to give her water by mouth? It is my understanding that she manages her saliva, so could she at least die without a dry mouth?
If one is removed from a respirator, oxygen is present for the patient to take, if able. Can someone explain to me why Terri can't be offered nourishment by mouth by someone familiar with patients who don't swallow as easily as you or I might? My MIL had ALS and lost her ability to swallow food and needed suction to manage saliva and during that I did learn there are processes to feeding people with differet swallowing problems.
765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--
(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures.
(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be satisfied that:
(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the right could be exercised by the patient.
(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the patient's physical condition is terminal.
The judge did when he refused to step down in response to a motion to dismiss the judge as required by FL statute law. Four times.
For those who call themselves Christian there is. You are free to reject Christ though. Unsaved people do all the time.
We are dealing with evil here.
Pontius Pilate has spoken.
Well, well, well...
"Could a church grant Terri sanctuary?"
No. We have no provisions in our laws for such actions. Churches may not break the law.
Because He's just adding insult to injury at this point.
That's why.
"Could it beeeeeeeeeeee... SATAN"??
WATER AND WARM MEALS SINCE ORDER-TO-MURDER-AN-INVALID BY REAPER AND JUDGE GREER
Murderer-At-Will Judge 'That litigant does not need a laywer' Greer 25
......................... Terri Shiavo 0
.......................... Lee Malvo 21
I do not think Terri got the best of care from her husband(to say the least), very good legal representation when it mattered, or medical care at critical times. Somehow legislation must accomodate the reality that wishes of people are fluid.
My mom had such a good doctor that he prescribed her certain prescriptions in sufficient quantity, that could stop her breathing. He warned her during every visit that if she took too many of these that she would not wake up as a result. N'uff said. She took the longer way out instead. She got to know her grandaughter very well during the added time the feeding tube gave her. At first she didn't want her grandaughter to even see her. That changed as she could watch her play in the yard from the window. She even cataloged birds at the bird feeder on her laptop. It became a pleasure in living which she would never have anticipated.
Yes but one branch writes the laws (legislature), the other executes the laws (excutive, i.e., Governor) and the other (judicial) interprets the laws. The governor cant write law or change the clear meaning of the law or overturn judicial decisions, except where written into Florida law that he has such power.
Because you don't believe in the Son of God, perhaps?
And I didn't say you couldn't answer it. You can answer it all you like. But your answer is always going to be the same: "No God, no Son. It's not Him."
For those who may want to read what the law says for themselves, here is a real link!
Chapter 765, Florida Statutes 2004 <-- Link
All of the language in the cited clause is ...
765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II unless the designation limits the surrogate's authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures.
(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be satisfied that:
(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the right could be exercised by the patient.
(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the patient's physical condition is terminal.
I don't see where the spouse is mentioned in there though. The patient designates. Note too, food and water are in fact legally defined as life-prolonging procedures.
Well, hei-di-ho, this being the state of the law, I am amazed that Michael even bothered going to court. If the spouse has the legal right to order the doctor to stop feeding, then why didn't he simply do that?
Nonsense. This case is changing the bias in the case of a dispute between relatives from life to death: her husband says she would want to die. Her parents say she wants to live. In the absence of her being able to speak, and in the face of such a dispute, it is best to have a bias in favour of life. That bias is overturned by this case, and hearsay, even when it conflicts with others, is sufficient to get one murdered by starvation and dehydration.
It's not I who worry too damn much. It is you who are far too cavalier about the implications of this case. Stick your head up your anal orifice, if you must, but the implications of this case remain.
Ivan
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.