Posted on 03/24/2005 9:58:45 AM PST by SmithL
I'VE HEARD the clamor as to why Terri Schiavo must die. No one, it is said, would want to live like her. Her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, are religious fanatics. Many of her so-called supporters are "pro-life" zealots. Evil GOP geniuses passed a special law to help her live. And so, she must die.
I've followed this poignant case for two years. Also, my husband served at one time as an unpaid informal adviser to the Schindlers. I've heard the arguments, and they often start with: No one would want to live like that.
After all, this case is supposed to be about Terri's "right to die," even though no one knows for sure that she wants to die. She never wrote a living will or other document asserting as much. A court decided that she would want to die, based on casual remarks she made to her husband, Michael Schiavo, and his brother and sister. She told them she would never want to be kept alive by machines.
I hate to insert facts here, but it is a fact that a feeding tube is not a machine. Yet somehow the courts found that those casual comments have the force of a legal document -- and apply to a feeding tube, when they were meant for a respirator.
In so ruling, a judge also ignored claims made by Michael Schiavo when he sued the hospital that first treated Terri in 1990 for $16 million for failing to detect her potassium imbalance. As Newsday reported in 2003, he won $300, 000 for himself for loss of consortium and $700,000 for his wife -- based on the presumption that Michael would care for Terri for the rest of her life.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
That is right. But it was a block of Republicans who could have saved her and they washed their hands.
If a person has verbally expressed a wish "not to live that way" to their spouse, and they find themselves in that condition, what would you suggest?
A) Upon the request of the surviving spouse, pull the feeding tube.
B) Unless he's a real scumbag. Then,
C) Leave it up to the doctor
D) Leave it up to a judge
D) Do a poll in USA Today
E) Ask BykrBayb because she has all the answers
Yes, we should all having living wills, written well enough not to be broken by an overzealous spouse or family. But in those cases where people do not have them, then what?
I think the King and his cops know the "Vast Right Wing" are generally law abiding citizens and therefore they can intimidate them at will.
Hell, if they can poke their fingers in the eyes of Congress and thumb their nose at the Governor, it's easy to bully some peons.
I wonder what it would have taken to make the bad guys vote the right way.
In those cases where someone hasn't signed away their right to life, do the same thing we used to do before written directives. Do the same thing we used to do when written directives were recognized as an individual's request that their care be handled differently than the standard care expected by a civilized society. Just because the right-to-die advocates haven't managed to con enough people into signing away their rights doesn't mean we should take those rights away from people who want them.
The king doesn't have jurisdiction over the cops. The governor does. Can anybody tell me why they're working for a judge and the estranged spouse of a woman being executed for the crime of being unattractive and nonproductive?
Good Question.
Unless the cops are state police, they work for the county (sheriff) or the city (local cops).
Hannity's interview right now (replay from H&C last night) is just pissing me off.
Republican's tend to remember these things much longer than democrats. It will make a huge difference in the next Florida election, I'm sure.
"I do not see the Terri Schavio case as being ridiculous as you seem to indicate..."
I was refering to the guy who comes home and shoots his wife because she said she had a headache and didn't want to live like that. You said it was an excellent example, I thought it was a rediculous scenario. Then I went on to say Florida should require written statements or video in right to life/death cases. What's wrong with that?
I agree. The family gathers together, consults with a priest, goes over the medical condition with the doctor, and collectively makes the best decision for the loved one.
That's the way it used to be done until the lawyers got involved.
You're dead wrong. It never used to be legal to murder someone for the crime of being brain damaged. Ask your Mommy & Daddy to tell you how it was thirty years ago.
First, I'm talking about maybe 50 years ago. Second, I never said it was legal.
This article explains it better than I can.
Rauch was wrong on this point. Custom dictates that the community look the other way about adulterous behavior when it is possible to do so. Discretion when committing adultery is not just a way to hide your behavior; it is a courtesy to everyone, most especially your spouse. But this is not a blanket social writ to go around cheating on the spouse. If you are caught, exposed, or simply so wantonly flagrant in your behavior that your behavior can no longer be ignored — or, in Bill Clinton's case, all three — then society must judge.
The same holds true when cops are caught on aerial cameras beating someone in broad daylight or, for that matter, when evil doctors like Jack Kevorkian (abetted by CBS) are seen on network television killing a patient. Such exposure forces the issue into the public square, because nobody can convincingly pretend it didn't happen, and legal norms and social fictions must be upheld. Such exposure often makes prosecutions unavoidable and some unlucky bastards often pay an unfair price. But just as we can pretend, up until a point, that doctors don't kill patients, or that your neighbor or your president isn't a cheating bastard, when the issue is spilled into your living room, we must disapprove. Such hypocrisies are some of the small payments we make for civilization.
Michael isn't discreetly trying to honor his wife's wishes (which just happen to be illegal). He's blatantly abusing and murdering her, while rubbing everyone's face in it. I am not capable of pretending he isn't doing it. I am not capable of pretending it's right. I don't understand anyone who is, and I don't want to. I don't ever want to become so detached from humanity that I can understand that perspective.
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.