Posted on 06/22/2005 8:06:02 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
"Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?" asked Joseph Welch in his famous confrontation with the pathologically cruel Joe McCarthy. "Have you left no sense of decency?"
More than a half-century later, I would ask the same question of Florida's governor, Jeb Bush.
In an abuse of power that has been widely denounced, and has even appalled many of his own supporters in the Republican Party, Governor Bush has tried to keep the Terri Schiavo circus alive by sending state prosecutors on a witch hunt against her husband, Michael.
The state attorney who has been pushed by the governor into pursuing this case told me yesterday he has seen nothing to indicate that a crime was committed. Nevertheless, the inquiry continues.
Governor Bush asked Bernie McCabe, the state attorney for Pinellas County, to "take a fresh look" at this already exhaustively investigated case to determine, among other things, whether Michael Schiavo had perhaps waited too long to call for help after discovering that his wife had collapsed early one morning 15 years ago.
Mr. McCabe did not seem particularly enthusiastic about his mission. "I wouldn't call it an investigation," he told me in a telephone conversation. The word "investigation," he said, "is a term of art in my business."
He then explained: "When I conduct an investigation, it would mean that I have a criminal predicate. In other words, that I have some indication that a crime has occurred. That's my job...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Something like, oh, I don't know ... umm ... if you want to talk to me, reference me, if you want to talk to another person, reference them?
What do you think? Can that possibly work?
The person whose comments are being commented on has some level of responsibility for recalling what he or she said.
And, as long as this is an open forum without an "ignore button", it's just something we all have to put up with.
I'm sure you think the facts, law and case law are all irrelevant. (rolls eyes)
In case you haven't noticed, it is now after 1990.
I'll take the truth where I find it. I don't dismiss it because I don't care for the source.
Terri's mother is still alive. She watched her daughter die of thirst. She was kept from giving the most basic of comfort.
And she has to live with that memory.
I get the feeling the odds are very much in her favor for having "one free kill" if she wishes.
Damned shame, but in a lawless society that's what can happen.
I have no clue what this means and I am not sure I want to.
The person whose comments are being commented on has some level of responsibility for recalling what he or she said.
Yes, but if you join 2 or 3 replies together you are making one person responsible for what other people say, as well as their own, you've done this to me at least twice.
And, as long as this is an open forum without an "ignore button", it's just something we all have to put up with.
Of course, goes without saying and I wouldn't hit the 'ignore' button on you anyway, muawiyah. Your posts are confusing and half the time I am not sure if you are replying to me, another freeper or your own personal deity, but you are never abusive or anything like that. Your posts are always welcome.
Respecting the right for people to live is equally as important. People are not refusing medical treatment in droves, so why promote setting the precedence in favor of presumption of death for the minority like yourself?
Here are some facts;
A JAMA (Journal of American Medical Association) study found that 48% of seriously ill patients wanted to "use all available treatments no matter what the chance of recovery," compared with 31% of patients who disagreed.
I agree.
People are not refusing medical treatment in droves
I've read recent polling data with different results than the poll you cited. Nevertheless, even the JAMA poll you cite states that 31% would not want extraordinary measures taken. When people are questioned specifically about PVS, a majority would not wish to be kept alive in that state.
so why promote setting the precedence in favor of presumption of death for the minority like yourself?
You misread me. There is no presumption in favor of death. The decision ultimately should be that of the patient. If the patient is unable to express his wishes, then, in Florida, the standard is "clear and convincing evidence" for what the patient would have wanted. In other words, the presumption is that the patient would want to live, unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. A presumption for life, not death. The problem is, certain zealots would remove the right of people to make these sorts of decisions. They want not just a presumption for life, but would actively seek to deny the right of people to reject life-sustaining medical treatment.
"In case you haven't noticed, it is now after 1990"
I was responding to your posting, in bold, that in October of 1990 the Florida legislature allowed nutrition and hydration to be withheld. As I understood your post, you were attempting to infer that it would have been legal for Terri to have declined food and water. I was pointing out that Terri's "accident" occurred prior to that date, and therefore she would not have even considered it.
No, my emphasis was for the benefit of the poster who objected that my previous citations were of court rulings rather than of law written by the legislature.
Yes I've noticed it's now after 1990..the US presumed my brain damaged spouse would want to live in those days....way back when the will of the people was honored, the Constitution applied to everyone, and the Hippocratic oath meant something.
I have one resounding question....
When to the people get to vote on this new presumption of death?
In this country, we elect representatives to write our laws. What them rewritten? Petition your legislatures, run for office yourself, or elect someone else who will make the changes to the laws you want.
See my #311. The presumption is for life, not for death.
We are on the same page here but the AMA on the other hand has a different idea.
As of Tuesday of this week they have in fact taken a stand against any legislation that would hold a presumption of life sighting the Schiavo case as their reason for imposing this on the entirety of the US population.
When was there ever written a law for the presumption of life? What law do I go after to change? The law hasn't been written yet save the Constitution. The movement is to block any such law from coming into existence even on the State level.
Got link? I'd like to see their actual words, rather than your interpretation.
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.