Posted on 03/23/2005 3:20:34 AM PST by syriacus
1. Dr. Cranford said, to Hannity last night, that PVS persons have no constitutional rights.
2. Cranford has said that Terri is PVS
Question:
Does Terri have the constitutional right to ask to be starved to death?
I didn't say cahoots...you did.
There are many things that are legal that I don't like. But then one should work to change the law--i.e.-the advocate system of law in Florida seems to be the case here. Isn't that what true conservatism is. Or do principals get thrown out when you don't like the results?
I didn't say cahoots...you did.
What does this mean?
So her right to live depends on whether he is having a good day or a 'roid rage day?
I wonder if Michael used steroids? I hear they can make you cranky.
This country is in the grip of immense evil.
Again, wonderful, well thought point. Your forensic skills are sharpening.
I've never heard of an eight year roid rage, though.
"Your right. If any doctor has any questions regarding treatment for a patient he should: ignore state law; disregard the spouse; ignore the vast majority of expertise and empirical data from his field; petition you and Sean Hannity and his brother-in-law for treatment advice and get Congress involved.
Welcome to medical & family law 2005."
Have you read history, young man? I suspect you are feeling pretty immortal yourself at the moment..But, your day will come if you live long enough..You might even begin to understand that freedom requires constant vigilence about whether the laws enacted by our government are effective in carrying out what was truly intended in reality. Laws can be distorted for the purpose of reflecting the political goal of raw power. Regarding spouses..50% of the marriages in this nation end in divorce and before those divorces occur, some great animosities grow between the people involved. In our own family, I shudder to think that any of the ex's would have any power over our family member. We had one who would have gone for money over anyone's life. As far as medical expertise..I am a medical person and I can tell you that the first thing one learns in medical school is just how little we know. Vaccinations, winning over infectious disease and the development of good anesthesias and surgeries have increased our life span, along with the good nutrition which keeps so many overweight. It is unfortunate that medical people now think that this kind of success makes them smart enough to challenge God's knowledge of the brain and nervous system which makes possible the expression of the soul. The understanding of all this is a new frontier and those who strut while sitting down, so proud of their definite opinions (in my view simply reflecting the lust for power) about whether Terri should live or die, are pushing us into a place where we do not want to go. Of course, once this kind of thing is set into motion, it spins faster and faster like a tornado and like a tornade, it leaves destruction in it's wake. God help us all!
Excellent point.
I wan't aware she "asked her husband to execute" her rights.
I am aware he is trying to execute/kill her now.
But since Michael's friendly doctor, Cranford, doesn't think Terri is a person, I guess it's A-ok to kill her.
Rationalization is the second strongest human urge. Those who want her to live will pick the facts that align with our viewpoint. Those who want to let her go will cherry pick the facts that support their position.
He kept her alive in order to win a malpractic case...then he moved on to his new honey, lived with her and now has two kids with the woman. He should have been removed as guardian period. This is the argument. He does not have Terri's best interest at heart. In fact some think he may have caused the accident that left Terri brain damaged. Terri will die alone. She is not being allowed to see her parents. He's probably afraid she will indicate in some public way that she is not a vegetable. This would certainly ruin his death plan. Food and water are not heroic measures. They should not be stopped under any cirucumstances.
I spent more than just a few minutes at it, and I have found so many conflicts of interest and other dubious items that I can only imagine that the Schindlers' lawyers are incompetent. Remember, most courts considered only a very narrow slice of the case; only Greer had the entire case in his lap.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1368567/posts
Here's a hint:
Cranford is a member of the board of directors of the Choice in Dying Society, which promotes doctor-assisted suicide and euthanasia.
In 1997, Cranford wrote an opinion piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune titled: "When a feeding tube borders on barbaric."
Terri = Dred Scott
Oh yes there were also all sorts of gag orders and withholding of medical records that many of these courts didn't have access to the information that is public today.
No, they don't see the danger here. They are on a mission to prove they are right. That's all they care about. Terri is being used by a lot of people. Notice how many of them who harp ceaselessly on an internet forum are leaving their keyboards and going to her aid. It's much easier to bloviate than to actually DO something.
I enjoyed that interview! Did you see that guy's eyes blinking and blinking and see him squirm? It was beeaauuttiiffuull! Hannity is great.
The if they commit the sin of murder or pride or both their punishment will come from God and is of no concern to you.
I notice you say "medical person" and not doctor. Where did you attend medical school?
I've forgotten more about these subjects then you'll ever know you patronizing fool, both from school and experience.
And advocacy ends with the marriage. No "ex" has legal rights over a former spouse.
We live in a society that has constructed courts to handle these types of problems. We do not need to agree, but we need to abide by them. That is the social contract.
This reminds me of the statement made by Supreme Court justices in the Taney decision that black Americans have no rights that needed to be repected under the constitution. I guess today's liberals would have applauded that statement since the courts are never wrong on fundamental issues in their opinion.
We consider ourselves a nation of laws but behind that is a broad consensus among the people on what is right and wrong and what is acceptable and unacceptable in our society. When there is a major split in what people believe should be acceptable on a major societal issue that goes to the fundamentals of our constitutional system --like slavery or abortion or like the right not to be ordered to death by dehydration by the courts if you are ill or disabled -- then our system and its courts will not function to support fundamental values since there is no longer a consensus on that value. Legal systems fail when these disagreements reach a crisis point. It took a civil war to reestablish a new consensus on slavery, the courts were on the wrong side of that one and the liberal judicial system and media is on the wrong side of this one.
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.