I have been sentenced to death by my sister

dailymail ^ | 24th March 2007 | By LAURA ROBERTS

[Shion]

"His promise revoking sister is unquestionably the real bad actor in this scenario and her obvious glee in exacerbating his and his family's suffering deserves far stronger condemnation from any balanced perspective."

How in the heck do you know she's gleeful?!

She wasn't even interviewed!

I mean, if there was some quote like "Ha ha, I'm so happy to finally have a chance to get a dig in at the old codger, can't wait for him to die so I can have a picnic on his grave" I'd go for the "gleeful" bit, but a lot of people in this thread have suddenly turned into trans-atlantic mind readers.

[soccermom]

"You don't throw a tantrum about your sister's selfishness; anyone who knows what's going on will see that. You don't take it to the public and air your family's dirty laundry. You tell all involved it is your sister's choice and you respect it. In other words, become an example of the proper way to go to meet your maker, not as some petty crybaby." Oh gimmie a break! Are you telling my that, if your aunt had the ability to spare your dad from death at relatively little cost to herself and refused to do so, you would just throw up your hands and say, "Oh well, dad, at least you tried. Now don't throw a tantrum." Somehow, I find that hard to believe. I don't see anything "petty" or "crybaby" about it. We're not talking about squabbling over the china or the flatware -- we're talking about a life. And, if it were my loved one, I would fight for every chance I could give him.

[soccermom]

How, exactly, do you know she's "smug"? Because she said she would donate the marrow and then reneged without the courtesy of explaining why. When given the opportunity to explain what appears to the casual observer to be an uncaring decision, she chooses not to. That, IMO, is smug.

[Shion]

"Because she said she would donate the marrow and then reneged without the courtesy of explaining why."

No no, you are mistaken.

She reneged without giving US, the GENERAL PUBLIC the courtesy of explaining why. We have no idea what she and her family have previously discussed, we really have no particular right to know, and she's not under any obligation to go to the presses with her personal life.

As I mentioned before, she was not interviewed, and at no point in this article has a chance to give her side.

[soccermom]

According to the article, the dying man's wife asked for a reason and all she said was she had to put her own family first. If there were more to it, the woman wouldn't have been at her door, begging.

[soccermom]

BTW, the article also says she declined to comment. If she declines to comment, we can't be faulted for taking the word of those who would comment.

[Radix]

For whatever its worth, I would not donate my bone marrow to my sister under similar circumstances, and the world would probably be a better place for it.

This is jive!

[Shion]

"If there were more to it, the woman wouldn't have been at her door, begging."

Quite a little psychic now, aren't you?

How do you know this, exactly? If there WAS more to it, wouldn't it be a great story for the wife to use to garner sympathy as well? Of course, I freely admit that's pure speculation on my part.

[Shion]

"BTW, the article also says she declined to comment. If she declines to comment, we can't be faulted for taking the word of those who would comment."

So because she doesn't want to air her public life to the presses all us armchair commentators get to decide any nasty stuff about her we want?

[soccermom]

Oh puhleeze! You don't need to be a psychic to understand that the man and his wife are beside themselves, perplexed as to why the sister is doing this. It says in the story that the wife asked and she didn't give an answer, other than that she had to put her family first. If the wife knew more she would have said so. It is preposterous to think these people would go to the press if they knew there was a rational explanation for the sister's refusal to help save her dying brother -- as if they knew only their side would be told. It's not like the sister was muzzled. She was given an opportunity to comment and declined.

[soccermom]

No -- we don't get to decide any nasty stuff about her we want. I don't get to make pronouncements about how she treats puppies or whether or not she pulls wings off of flies. I do get to draw conclusions about how she treats a dying brother, based on the information available. According the information available, she initially told her brother she would give him the marrow. A few years later when he needed it, she refused. When asked by the wife why she did so, she didn't answer beyond saying she had to put her family first. Any protestations that the risks for procedure were minimal were, apparently, ignored. And then the dying man and his wife were treated to a visit from her lawyer. If that makes the sister look "nasty", that is too darn bad. If she chooses not to refute the available information, I am, indeed allowed to think nasty things about her. Of course, what I think of the woman is irrelevant. But if there are children who come into contact with this woman, (it isn't clear from the job description), she may not want their parents thinking nasty things about her.

[Shion]

"Oh puhleeze!"

Oh please yourself. You're the one assuming things.

"You don't need to be a psychic to understand that the man and his wife are beside themselves, perplexed as to why the sister is doing this."

Yes, that's what they've decided to air to the media. Does that make it the unvarnished truth? I'd like to think you know better.

"It says in the story that the wife asked and she didn't give an answer, other than that she had to put her family first."

It says the wife asked at least that one time (the time she had to be dragged away by the po po incidentially), it does not enlighten us to any other myraid possiblities of conversations we are not privy to.

"If the wife knew more she would have said so."

Really? Would she? You know this person so well you can say for a fact that she couldn't possibly tell the media only the portions of things that make the sister look like a raging bitch?

"It is preposterous to think these people would go to the press if they knew there was a rational explanation for the sister's refusal to help save her dying brother"

Heh heh. What a nice, friendly, pleasant world you must live in.

"She was given an opportunity to comment and declined."

She has the right to her privacy.

[SoCal Pubbie]

"You tell all involved it is your sister's choice and you respect it. "

What if you don't respect it? I wouldn't, if I was him, and I wouldn't want to lie about it.

[fishhound]

my 2 cents.
I am bisased.
There is not much in the world that stands as perfect. A perfect match counts a something perfect.

It is also a perfect way to possibly save someone.

The opportunity is a gift in itsef.

A perfect gift and an opportunity to rise to something great.

Whatever thier differences are; that is something else.

To me, the one withholding is rejecting her chance to be great.

Prayers for all of them, what a mess.

[Slings and Arrows]

You win.

[apocalypto]

I see your point.

[soccermom]

You're missing the point entirely. If the couple were aware of a rational (or even embarrassing to them) reason the sister is denying her help, they wouldn't go to the press. To do so, they would have to presume the "other side" would never come out. Do they have the sister tied up and gagged? Do they have control over the press? If they went public, they had to have known it was possible "enlightening" information would become public.

"You know this person so well you can say for a fact that she couldn't possibly tell the media only the portions of things that make the sister look like a raging bitch?" I know that it would be foolish to tell the media only portions of things that make the sister look like a raging bitch, knowing that media is capable of uncovering other things. The fact that they were willing to go public, knowing this, and the fact that the sister declines to refute it, speaks volumes.

Yes, she does, indeed, have the right to privacy. And if that "privacy" is more important to her that looking like "a raging bitch", then she should enjoy it. But you can't fault people for drawing conclusions based on information she chooses not to refute.

[2ndClassCitizen]

Actually, if it was me, I would go to court to force her to give me the cells, if that failed, kidnapping would be the charge.

I would rather do jail time for kidnapping than die. Think about it, if this guy has little time left what threat is there to a kidnapping charge.

Would there be a possibility of a jury convicting him?

All this presupposes that the story is even close to accurate. I suspect the story may be highly inaccurate.

[soccermom]

Well, I don't know if I'd go that far for myself. He certainly doesn't have a legal standing. But I would risk jail time to save my husband or kids -- not that I could do much since I'm not a doctor.

[soccermom]

According to post #213, the marrow is extracted with a big needle -- they aren't cut open. He says in the nineties it was done under general anesthesia, but he is guessing that is more about the comfort of the donor than a necessity. I've given birth to four kids. The first 2, I delivered naturally without any pain killers. The last one, I had a C-section. I'm not saying I'd enjoy it, but I'm thinking I could handle taking a needle to save the life of my brother.