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 ...
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.
The problem was that the law permitted this to happen. No one should have life support removed based solely upon verbal testimony.
"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."
Sustenance should not be confused with life support.
Water and food is not life support.
I am loathe to force livesaving measures on those who do not want it.
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.
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..
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.
read later
Then, as I've said, the law needs to be amended.
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?"
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suicide is illegal. And what I suggested is not just "that may be" it is. It happens all the time.
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.