Posted on 04/22/2005 10:18:32 AM PDT by amdgmary
This is all just HOOPLA to instill fear in the elderly or those not capable of putting together a logical train of thought. Further, anyone, regardless of age, who has NOT completed such a form is taking a great risk. I won't add "an idiot" since I know many people are already getting over the hype instigated in the Schiavo case.
BAH! Your "form" won't save you. I can guarantee you this: give me enough hearsay evidence piled up in a case like it was in the Schiavo case, the ear of a sympathetic judge (like Greer), a slew of conflicted witnesses whose testimony is given decisive weight to the exclusion of contrary testimony, and I can shred any "form" you might have into so much chaff and scatter it to the legal winds.
And don't start with the "the courts have never disallowed written wishes" crap of an argument, either. Because time was when the courts were guardians of inalienable rights, and were there to protect the most vulnerable and helpless among us. Now they are killers of them.
Because what this case has proven is that your wishes won't matter in circumstances like this. The desires of others will. What that means is that individuals who stand innocent in the eyes of the law, who have committed no crime nor are even accused of one, no longer have control of their own destiny. Someone else does, and it is just a roll of the dice as to whether they will have your, or their, interests at heart when they decide if you should live or die.
I used to have very positive feelings about hospice as well. I learned.
My ex-husband's grandmother was put in hospice after suffering for years (she was supposed to die "any month now" for over 10 years) from emphezema. She was apparently alert and seemed ok (or no worse than she had) the day before she died (within a week of going to hospice). We were due to visit her later the day she passed away. Now, this has me wondering if she wasn't "helped along."
I saw the same thing where I used to work. A resident who was put on hospice, was out in her wheelchair chatting away with the nurses and very OK.
Then her meds were changed and the next day, she was gone.
I'm appalled by how this country views our elderly (one of the prime targets of this type of travesty). I cannot believe that "the Greatest Generation" is in the kind of danger it is now after fighting so hard sixty plus years ago for our freedom and the freedom of the world. This is what they fought AGAINST (as one WWII vet recently told me). Remember all those great pictures of the eighteen-twenty somethings in those sailor and army uniforms from the forties? Remember the Rosie the Riveters and all the pics of them? The nurse in Times Square being kissed by the jubiliant sailor when news of Japan's surrender was announced? The youngest of those fighters are now in their eighties. I wonder if this is how they are being repaid for their heroism...death edicts issued by the liberals who would have protested THAT war, too (and some did).
I still do not understand why, when Terri's feeding tube was pulled, the parents were not allowed to administer nourishment (liquids) by mouth.
If she could not swallow, what harm could it have done? And please don't say "IT COULD HAVE KILLED HER"
sp
Ping to self for pingout.
As well they should feel threatened. The above attitude exhibited by so many is utterly appalling and frightening! And yes, there is a test for personhood, and for many, Terri failed that test.
The author makes many other salient points. Well done!
bttt
"May God forgive us"
May God punish us first until we repent, change the laws even if it means a second American revolution, then we ask for forgiveness!
The rot has cut into the heart of our nation...it needs to be cut out...!
There is a charming little old Lady from LaGrange, GA, now being treated in B'ham, AL, who had such a written instruction, stating that she didn't want anyone withholding food and water from her if she became incapacitated. Oddest thing, a family member went to a judge and got appointed guardian and ignored Mae's directives in order to starve her to death. It didn't succeed, thanks to Mae's relatives in B'ham.
No, the law was changed to include hydration and nutrition in 1999; Greer made it RETROACTIVE to 1990 just to include Terri. He deliberately murdered her.
Hello! Some folks are mentally challenged, meaning they can't just simply fill out a form for themselves. Meaning they would have to depend on someone else to make decisions for them. Meaning some have family members like MICHAEL SCHIAVO and YOU CAN'T TRUST PEOPLE LIKE THAT!! Meaning the disabled are at the mercy of some monsters.
Something must be done to protect vulnerable people.
The rot has cut into the heart of our nation...it needs to be cut out...!
I agree.
Post #9 scared me. I think that might have happened to my ex-husband's father.
This was a rational discussion of the real issue for most of us of Terri's case. It wasn't forcing someone to live against their will, or inserting ourselves in "their" decision. It was that there was a question about which way things should go absent a clear indication.
Your post says that anybody who doesn't want to be put to death when they are disabled should "simply" write up a legal document asking to be kept alive. There are two problems.
One, minor problem, is that sometimes these forms are IGNORED. The argument is that you weren't "competent" to make the decision ahead of time because you didn't know what it really was like.
But that is just a symptom of the bigger problem, which is the lean of society to the idea that some people are better off dead.
See, there is are economic and emotional reasons why someone would be biased toward ending the life of a person who can't protect themselves. The only thing protecting them is laws in the books, OR the general societal bias toward life. Now we've lost the societal bias, it has leaned toward "killing" as the "humane" thing to do. So in fact those who argued for Terri's life were called the mean-spirited ones, while those who called for her death were the compassionate ones.
The law of the United States should be that you only get put to death if you specifically requested it. You should not have to specifically request to be kept alive.
What is the difference between the hospice doctor ordering Roxanol and his patients die and the lone nurse who takes it upon herself to poison her patients and her patients die?
Darned if I know.
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.