The Next Schaivo Battle

[dplax]

Judge denies feed tube request

Well at least the judge had the courage to stand against the senate...

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by VulcanRider: quote: Originally posted by Morgeruat: Damn skippy, we need a young child to come out and tell everyone that they're not wearing clothes.

Ewwww. I can't think of a single member of the House or Senate that I'd like to see nude... [/QUOTE]... near children.

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Azred: I was listening to the Michael Savage show on a talk radio station,

Hey! I listen to him too when I can. He says alotta stuff just to get people to call up and fuss. You know that. Sometimes, he does not mean what he says...he just likes to get a rise out of people.

About the Federal Judges's decision. Yay! I am glad to see that he could not be persuaded by the popular vote in Washington. He is keeping to the law.

Hey get this. I was listening to that same radio station, but it was Neil Bortz that was talking about this. Yesterday morning, the general media failed to cover the story of a newborn infant taken off of life support in the state of Texas, "against the screaming pleas of her mother not to", under a law that gives a doctor the right to pull the plug on anyone that they deem is a wasted case...in order to reserve state resources. If the mother wanted to PAY for the newborn to stay on life-support, that was fine, but when the doctor deemed the child "unsavable", the state had no more reason to pay for the life support. My point...guess who signed that law into reality? Governer Bush, when he was the governer there. What he signed for Shiavo is completely opposite from what he did back then. As of now, the state of Texas will do as the doctor deems right. In other words, if Shiavo were to have lived in texas fifteen years ago...well...her tombstone would be fifteen years old.

[Larry_OHF]

cnn.com updates the news page with the following...

A three-judge panel at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta received the case hours after U.S. District Judge James Whittemore in Tampa, Florida, refused the request of parents Bob and Mary Schindler to reinsert the tube. Both sides in the case -- the Schindlers, and Schiavo's husband, Michael, filed documents Tuesday with the appellate court.

[Violet]

I don't see what's so wrong with allowing her family to take care of her. It's not like the government or her husband are footing the bill here. Just because her husband says she would not have wanted to live that way doesn't make it so.
Allow the divorce to be granted and let her family have her, after all someone worked to save her life to begin with. What makes it useless now?
There are other people in this country in the same condition who have their families to love and care for them, no matter what the "quality of their life" may have been degraded to due to accident or illness.
I wonder what that judge is going to feel like when he or a member of his family ends up in the same kind of need as Terri Schaivo? Will their life be considered worthless too?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: Hey get this. I was listening to that same radio station, but it was Neil Bortz that was talking about this. Yesterday morning, the general media failed to cover the story of a newborn infant taken off of life support in the state of Texas, "against the screaming pleas of her mother not to", under a law that gives a doctor the right to pull the plug on anyone that they deem is a wasted case...in order to reserve state resources. If the mother wanted to PAY for the newborn to stay on life-support, that was fine, but when the doctor deemed the child "unsavable", the state had no more reason to pay for the life support. My point...guess who signed that law into reality? Governer Bush, when he was the governer there. What he signed for Shiavo is completely opposite from what he did back then. As of now, the state of Texas will do as the doctor deems right. In other words, if Shiavo were to have lived in texas fifteen years ago...well...her tombstone would be fifteen years old.

Ahh... you forget the order of priority, my friend:

1. The lobbyists who PAY for your candidacy. Such as the doctors lobby in Texas, who saw a whole slew of new medmal tort reforms passed on their behalf so they would be less likely to be bothered by lawsuits when they sewed sutures and gauzes up inside of their patients.

2. The lobbyists who VOTE for you. Such as the religious right right-to-lifers. When the wishes of these voters will not contradict the 1st priority (see above), they should be given priority. In the Schaivo case, the family is fully willing to let the Doctors bleed them dry -- so they are *adding to* not *subtracting from* the hospital's bottom line. So, Bush supports them.

It's just that simple.

And, I'm so sick of hearing about this that I'm tempted to drive down to the Orange and Trance Music state and turn her damn machines off myself.

And, Violet, sure the parents are willing to pay to "take care" of her. That's not the question here. The question is WHAT DOES SHE WANT? She EXPRESSED WHAT SHE WANTED. 11 triers of fact have found that:

1. If brain dead, she wanted to be allowed to die. Argue with it all you want, but 11 tribunals have brought together all testimony on this issue and reviewed it for hours on end, and this is what they found.

2. She is brain dead. 11 tribunals all brought together the doctors and experts and heard them out -- and this is what they found.

So, to your concern as to what she would want, there you have it. For my part, I hope my family heeds my wishes. I would certainly rather die than spend years trapped in a body that can't communicate or do anything. If there is anything worse awaiting me in Hell, I'll risk it. I'm reminded of Metallica's "One," and can think of very few things worse than suffering through that.

[shamrock_uk]

A good (if biased) discussion about the law that Larry mentioned can be found here.

/me makes a dartboard with key Republican figures and a symbol representing lobby-based politics

To expand a little, the law applies even if the patient was still concious and even when this was being done against the express wish of the patient and the family

The different circumstances? It only applies to the poor, whose families could no longer pay for life-sustaining measures.

Sh**ting on the little guy as always - either you believe that its immoral or you don't - how dare they (and he) claim a point of principle, cite the absolute right to life and take the moral high-ground when they're so bloody two-faced in practice!

An extremely good, intelligent and measured article on the Schaivo case can be found here.

[ 03-22-2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

[Larry_OHF]

Violet, the whole argument here is based on Terri's expectancy of her husband to carry out her wishes. What were those wishes is what is being debated. Since he claims that her wish was to be let go, then those that are siding with him know that he would not be honoring his wife's wishes if he walked away before giving her his last promised gift that he could give her, out of love for her.

My wife told me last night that if she were in a comma for three years, and there was no visible definate time frame in which she might wake up, to let her go. What if after three years, I did not give her what she wanted and instead gave her back to her mom? I love my wife too much to betray her trust in me. That is what this is about. Terri is trusting her husband to do the thing she requested...and the courts have been trying to decide if he has the right to speak for her. All of them so far have proven the husband to be the legal say-so'er. Only the polititions that want votes are denying the truth.

[johnny]

Pro life....blah...just pull the plug and get it over with. That's not life. If i ever end up like that woman, and they keep me alive like a vegetable, i'll come back in the afterlife and haunt the crap out of everyone involved. So it's written and so it shall be done.

[shamrock_uk]

Is the TV coverage as biased against the husband as many articles seem to suggest?