Terri's Fight - (Daily Thread/Updates)November 1-2, 2003

Various | November 1, 2003 | sweetliberty

[msmagoo]

Can it be argued that a legal precedent HAS been established (to uphold Terri's Law) in the earlier case of congressional/legislative intervention to prevent starvation and non-intervention of Downs syndrome infants? It looks that way to me!

see article in post 77

"About 20 years ago, a hospital staff in Indiana was starving an infant with Down's syndrome. A whistle-blower alerted authorities, and the district attorney went to court to order hydration. The judge refused. Public comment supported the idea that "difficult" decisions like starving disabled infants were best left to the privacy of doctor-parent consultation.

"In spite of that, enough of the public was sufficiently outraged to create a stir that cut across the political spectrum in Washington. As a result, congressional legislation was drafted to prevent medical killings of disabled infants.

"The legislation, which ultimately was passed, was decried by bioethicists, physicians and others as an attack on both the medical profession and the privacy of family decisions. As a result of the passage of the law, though, more of us avoided getting killed in hospital nurseries through denial of treatment."

[sweetliberty]

"Another women beater, wow ! Where's N.O.W ?"

Busy drafting marriage proposals to death row inmates.

[sweetliberty]

Did the statute deal specifically with infants? I am appalled that murder is considered a "privacy" matter between family members. What's next? We take a dislike to a the crazy aunt or the drunken cousin and make a "private" family decision to put them out of our their misery? Of course, I guess it should come as no big surprise. We knew this was the direction we were heading once abortion was made legal. We've been rapidly deteriorating as a society ever since. God will not be mocked. We are reaping what we have sown.

Aristeides, see post #81. Does this have merit you think?

[MeekOneGOP]

I tried what I could on my PhotoDeluxe software but was not able to improve it. So sorry. :O(

[sweetliberty]

Might I respectfully make a suggestion that you use higher contrast between the background color and the font color. Even with the larger font size, I am finding it very difficult to read the black on dark red, even with my glasses, and my vision isn't THAT bad.

[sweetliberty]

"about the insurance business operates" should read: "about HOW the insurance business operates"

My typos are becoming abominable of late!

[sweetliberty]

Isn't it ironic that the same liberal idealogy that so devalues the family and the sanctity of marriage, uses the legal contract of marriage as justification for giving the decision making power over a disabled woman to someone with clear conflicts of interests who refers to another woman and her children as his "family?" This man has so blatantly violated the covenant of marriage before God that he long ago lost the right to call himself Terri's husband. I would bet that if she could, Terri would agree.

[dandelion]

Bump for a GREAT thread! I really appreciate all the work you all are doing on this - please, everybody, keep praying for Terri...

[dandelion]

Bump for a GREAT thread! I really appreciate all the work you all are doing on this - please, everybody, keep praying for Terri...

[msmagoo]

Yes, that statute was enacted to protect infants, specifically those born with disabilities - but I see a parallel between what Jeb Bush and the Florida lawmakers did to protect Terri and others like her and what was done to protect those disabled babies. Also, that law was passed to remedy the [lawful but unfair] taking of life by doctors & courts, which may set a precedent that can be used to uphold the constitutionality of Terri's Law.

As the excellent Drake article states:

"Guardianship -- which in this case was granted to Schiavo's husband by the courts -- has to have limits, especially when the stakes are the very lives of the people under guardians' power. It's important to remember that guardians have power over people, not property, and those people still have rights."

[msmagoo]

Re: the Prudential settlement - others have speculated that Terri was working for Prudential at the time of her 'collapse' and her medical bills were covered through her employer's insurance. Whether it was homeowner's or employee insurance - Michael was not investigated by police for possible criminal wrongdoing. Thus he had a 'leg up' when he went forward with the malpractice suit against the doctors...having already been 'cleared' by virtue of Prudential's payouts. Just another little 'loophole' that worked in his favor...

[msmagoo]

I don't see how, as a Catholic, Terri would ever approve of Michael and Jody having two kids while Michael is still married to Terri!

Is this another "right to privacy" (gag) issue that Judge Greer felt was irrelevent?!

Any impartial, unbiased guardian appointed to look out for Terri's interests would be in court demanding a divorce - I hope the new guardian takes Michael's blatant infidelity into consideration when reviewing the case. How can it be deemed irrelevent when Michael's guardianship is contested? It's evidence of his conflict of interest, for crying out loud!

[sweetliberty]

I guess I understand the point you're trying to make, but I just cannot see why it is so hard for people to comprehend that this case is different. This isn't about someone who is terminally ill being sustained by heroic means. It is about someone about whom even the medical professionals cannot agree on her potential for rehabilitation. We are talking about a case where information has been covered up or destroyed and even scratching the surface yields questions that should be enough to cause people to back off, preferring to err on the side of caution.

As has been said so many times before, this is not about the right to die a natural death. Terri is not dying. It is about the "right to kill." I will reiterate that we are not allowed to kill criminals in such a cruel way. We cannot even make the "decision" to kill our pets in such a way, for it would be deemed cruelty, and yet a woman whose only crime is not being able to communicate clearly, can be sentenced to a cruel death at the hand of her "husband" with the blessing of the court. It takes a special kind of mental contortionist to be able to reach the conclusion, even with a minimum of information, that this is acceptable. Either that, or a complete lack of conscience.

[MSCASEY]

Thank You Sweet Liberty for the wonderful job you are doing on the threads and keeping us all updated!!!

MCD

[syriacus]

This is a dangerous abuse of power by the governor and the Florida lawmakers, and it should concern everyone," ACLU spokeswoman Alessandra Soler Meetze said. "It's an extremely frightening prospect when the governor negates a court decision . . . simply because he disagrees with the outcome.

I think it is even more frightening that the
Florida ACLU gave an award to Gerald Kogan
the former Chief Justice of the Florida State Supreme court
who thinks there is no difference between

• withholding medical care and
• physician assisted suicide.

[sweetliberty]

Glad to do what I can. All I'm really doing is providing the framework. It is everybody's contributions that make it a valuable resource.

[sweetliberty]

idealogy = "ideology"

Arghhhh!!!!

This is YOUR fault! It just HAS to be. I never used to make so many mistakes. And to my knowledge there is no cure. Thanks a lot!

[Theodore R.]

And the load, it doesn't weigh me down at all


Schiavo would have changed this line: And the load, it's too heavy . ... so (s)he must die."

[Theodore R.]

I hope the new guardian takes Michael's blatant infidelity into consideration when reviewing the case.

Absolutely not a chance of that happening. This "bioethicist" is clintoid through and through. He will have ZERO sympathy for Terri -- he has already said as much. It's just that Demers is ALSO "too blind to see."

[Theodore R.]

He "can't" divorce her, for he would have to turn over half his assets to her -- assets acquired during "their marriage." So it is about money -- no divorce is financially possible for Schiavo. Why can't the blind Americans see?