Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Schiavo: Awakening A Sleeping Giant
davidlimbaugh.com ^ | 3/31/05 | david limbaugh

Posted on 03/31/2005 4:45:33 PM PST by lancer256

I hope mr. limbaugh is correct:

Schiavo: Awakening A Sleeping Giant by David Limbaugh

It is just possible, contrary to my original thoughts, that the tragic Schiavo case will not usher in a slippery slope toward euthanasia but cause a double-barreled backlash against both the "Culture of Death" and judicial activism.

To be sure, the legal precedent established in this case, at least in Florida, represents an affirmative devaluation of human life and opens the door to further troubling scenarios, involving the state-sanctioned murder of the inconvenient, based on "quality of life" assessments.

But I sense in this nation a growing outrage at the arrogance and unaccountability of our judiciary, and at the cavalier attitude many are exhibiting toward life.

(Excerpt) Read more at davidlimbaugh.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: limbaugh; schiavo; terrischiavo; unlikely
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-137 next last
To: Cboldt
Have you read the model language in the Florida statutes? What outcome would it cause in this circumstance?

I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure in what manner present law could best be amended. But requiring a written living will would certainly have avoided the recent circumstances.

61 posted on 03/31/2005 6:19:30 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Harmless Teddy Bear
The problem in this entire sad situation was that the right questions were never asked.

The problem was that the law permitted this to happen. No one should have life support removed based solely upon verbal testimony.

62 posted on 03/31/2005 6:21:03 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
I am not a lawyer, so I'm not sure in what manner present law could best be amended. But requiring a written living will would certainly have avoided the recent circumstances.

"Avoided the recent circumstances" is indefinite. "Recent circumstances' is a fairly complex tapestry of inter-related events. If Terri had a Living Will of the model in the Florida Statutes, she would have been starved to death without need of recourse to the courts for permission. In effect, her own words would have said "Starve me to death if I become incapaciated and unable to communicate."

63 posted on 03/31/2005 6:25:10 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

Sustenance should not be confused with life support.
Water and food is not life support.


64 posted on 03/31/2005 6:27:34 PM PST by sarasmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Do you think that people should not have the right to make that decision for themselves?

I am loathe to force livesaving measures on those who do not want it.

65 posted on 03/31/2005 6:28:04 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: sarasmom
Sustenance should not be confused with life support.

Should people be forced to accept feeding tubes? The insertion of a feeding tube is unquestionably a medical procedure.

My position is: absent a written living will, life support and sustenance should be provided. If, however, the person has properly and specifically requested, in writing, that this care NOT be provided, then their wishes should be respected.

66 posted on 03/31/2005 6:30:25 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
The law in Florida specifically allows for what happened in the Schiavo case

Please enough already with that tripe! The law was not adhered to, time after time after time.

Greer based his ruling on inadmissible which is a violation of Florida law.

Greer was acting as a guardian of a person who's case he was deciding. A clear violation of Florida law.

MS was by law supposed to file a yearly guardian plan. That law was violated.

Terri was placed in a Hospice, a violation of the law, since she was not terminally ill and had not been certified.

And's just for starters..

67 posted on 03/31/2005 6:32:03 PM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
I am loathe to force livesaving measures on those who do not want it.

Lifesaving and life sustaining are not the same thing, despite FL statutory law that makes them so by legal sophistry.

Death is inevitable, but (save for capital criminals) it is to occur on God's schedule, not man's.

68 posted on 03/31/2005 6:32:49 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

read later


69 posted on 03/31/2005 6:33:26 PM PST by nutmeg (Rest in Peace, Terri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
despite FL statutory law that makes them so by legal sophistry.

Then, as I've said, the law needs to be amended.

70 posted on 03/31/2005 6:34:42 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
Lifesaving and life sustaining are not the same thing

Does that mean that you believe feeding tubes should be inserted, even if expressly against the written instructions of the patient?

71 posted on 03/31/2005 6:35:33 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Does that mean that you believe feeding tubes should be inserted, even if expressly against the written instructions of the patient?

That's a canard, IMO. Most folks anticipate a life ending event other than starvation, e.g. disease or trauma. Living Wills can cause trouble. A person says "no respirator," but what if 24 hours on a respirator is a life/death difference where the patient comes out whole? Do you still want "no respirator?"

72 posted on 03/31/2005 6:40:30 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: diamond6

Do not woory about the polls. It all is dependent on the way the question is aked. I believe there is a HUGE silent majority out there and they are p.o.ed like I am!


73 posted on 03/31/2005 6:41:11 PM PST by Citizen Soldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Yes. Unless triage-type circumstances prevent it. That would include a patient that clearly would not survive three days even if fed. If the patient survives three days -- put the tube in.

Don't write a death contract on yourself in the hubris and comfort of a day when you are strong and healthy -- because on the day whan that changes your mindset and outlook about what you can and will live with is likely to change too.

74 posted on 03/31/2005 6:45:19 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: what's up
So do I.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

75 posted on 03/31/2005 6:49:33 PM PST by expatguy (http://laotze.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
No one should have life support removed based solely upon verbal testimony.

There you go. That is what I mean by a right question. That is a better point then the one that everyone was talking about which quite frankly sounded like a back fence gossip session and personally I believe drove people away.

As an aside, we have to quit doing that.

Here is the major question, "Do we kill people with healthy bodies but damaged brains?"

The problem was that the law permitted this to happen.

No. Wrong question. The problem is that we elected people who both wrote and interpreted the law that was used to allow this to happen.

As long as we can blame "the law" we are missing the point and not asking the right questions to correct this problem. We are as illogical as people who blame a gun for a shooting.

76 posted on 03/31/2005 6:50:19 PM PST by Harmless Teddy Bear ( We're all doomed! Who's flying this thing!? Oh right, that would be me. Back to work.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: lancer256

Don't hold your breath waiting for a backlash. Over 40 million unborn children have been sacrificed by the ghouls, and the holocaust hasn't been stopped yet.


77 posted on 03/31/2005 6:52:07 PM PST by Aarchaeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
A person says "no respirator," but what if 24 hours on a respirator is a life/death difference where the patient comes out whole? Do you still want "no respirator?"

Such conditions could be written into a living will. If the person is adamant about "no respirator", though, I don't think it should be imposed upon him.

78 posted on 03/31/2005 7:02:23 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: bvw
because on the day whan that changes your mindset and outlook about what you can and will live with is likely to change too.

That may be. And living wills can be changed. I don't, however, think government or the medical community should be second-guessing the clearly established -- in writing -- wishes of the patient.

79 posted on 03/31/2005 7:03:44 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: malakhi

Suicide is illegal. And what I suggested is not just "that may be" it is. It happens all the time.


80 posted on 03/31/2005 7:06:09 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 121-137 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson