Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Patient wants to live, but old 'living will' mandates death
WorldNetDaily ^ | 10/20/05 | Diana Lynne

Posted on 10/20/2005 5:52:22 PM PDT by wagglebee

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 401-420 next last
To: Wampus SC

Turkey season, huh? Yesterday as I was posting, about twenty of the things walked through between the garden and the house, right past where I have been sighting in my, uh 8mm.

No clowns, just wild turkeys begging to be blasted.

8mm


101 posted on 10/25/2005 3:44:07 AM PDT by 8mmMauser (Jesu ufam tobie..Jesus I trust in Thee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: 8mmMauser

I'm not in the least surprised, and have always expected, the generation that embraced abortion would face euthanasia.


102 posted on 10/25/2005 3:48:11 AM PDT by papertyger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: IIntense
Like it or not, the laws of this country ARE based on the Ten Commandments.

Indeed they are. With limitations. Would you like to see the intended limitations?

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.--Federalist 45

How about a conservative judge's view of the current issue and where he believes the power lies?

that the point at which life becomes "worthless," and the point at which the means necessary to preserve it become "extraordinary" or "inappropriate," are neither set forth in the Constitution nor known to the nine Justices of this Court any better than they are known to nine people picked at random from the Kansas City telephone directory; and hence, that even when it is demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that a patient no longer wishes certain measures to be taken to preserve her life, it is up to the citizens of Missouri to decide, through their elected representatives, whether that wish will be honored. It is quite impossible (because the Constitution says nothing about the matter) that those citizens will decide upon a line less lawful than the one we would choose; and it is unlikely (because we know no more about "life-and-death" than they do) that they will decide upon a line less reasonable.--Scalia, Cruzan v Director, MDH

But don't let anything like facts or opinions by the man who wrote the Constitution or Constitutional lawyers stop your crusade...

103 posted on 10/25/2005 6:20:57 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Wampus SC
Involvement from all over is welcome, because sometimes court decisions result in something called a precedent.

Okay let's look at precedent shall we? Would Scalia's decision in Cruzan suffice? Who did he say should make this decision? If you are a South Carolinian, get to it and save this man's life. Allow your legislature to act as they see fit. Call officials you elected.

I realize some around here would federalize every moral decision under the sun if Republicans remain in charge, however Madison was quite clear. I also realize Republicans selectively forget the Framers when it stands in the way of their 'crusades', however conservatives don't.

104 posted on 10/25/2005 6:59:37 AM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

It's too bad that normally intelligent people don't understand that it could happen to them one day. I printed out 2 copies of "the will to live", and when the current bs is done, I'm going over it with an attorney. I also bookmarked an online power of attorney form for my state.


105 posted on 10/25/2005 7:56:18 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl ("President Bush, start building that wall"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: billbears
Who did he say should make this decision?

What decision? Are you referring to who gets to decide to kill another person? Should the spouse decide whether or not to kill them? Should a municipal judge decide whether or not to kill them? Should the Congress decide whether or not to kill them?

You ask the question as though somebody MUST decide, and it's just a matter of who should decide.

Is this a decision that must only be made about disabled people, or are others in need of this decision as well? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Jewish neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Mexican neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Baptist neighbor?

Or maybe you would prefer to base it on an individual's circumstances that affect the quality of their lives. Who should decide whether or not to kill a recently widowed man? Who should decide whether or not to kill a woman whose baby just died? Who should decide whether or not to kill a homeless man? Obviously all those people are suffering. Killing them would no doubt end their suffering.

Are those all private family matters? Should we accept that as long as they're able to speak on a certain level, they can make that decision themselves, but if not, the next of kin should decide? At what level should a person be required to speak in order to get to decide whether or not they should be killed? College level? High school level? And do they have to speak English, or will just any language suffice?

Or maybe we shouldn't single out any particular group of people. Maybe every individual should be subject to this decision. We can eliminate the taboo in killing, as long everybody follows the rules. Each of us will have a Designated Decision Maker (DDM) to decide our fate. The DDM will get to choose the hour and manner of our deaths. If you want to kill somebody for whom you are not the DDM, you'll need to petition the DDM for permission, and pay whatever surcharge the DDM deems appropriate. Parents will automatically be the DDM for their children. Upon marriage, the title of DDM automatically transfers to the spouse. Every one of us will have one person somewhere who gets to decide the time and method of our death. You've already established that the person for whom the decision is being made should have no say in the matter. (Or does your opinion on that only apply to Terri Schiavo Schindler, Scott Thomas, and Jimmy Chambers?) So, resisting your DDM's attempts to kill you will be a crime, punishable by a more turturous death than originally intended.

Or do you reserve this sacred practice of "deciding" solely for disabled people's decision makers?

106 posted on 10/25/2005 4:16:33 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Impeach Judge Greer - In memory of Terri <strike>Schiavo</strike> Schindler - www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
What decision? Are you referring to who gets to decide to kill another person? Should the spouse decide whether or not to kill them? Should a municipal judge decide whether or not to kill them? Should the Congress decide whether or not to kill them?

Kill, disconnect the tube, I really don't care what you call it. Your first statement shows you're going to keep up the hyperbole. It's an end of life decsion. My question, which apparently went over your head (as if that's hard), was who did Scalia say should make the decision? Scalia, suprisingly a bit, supported the rights of the states, per the Constitution, to make the decision. It was a glaring aspect of his ruling in the Cruzan decision. One would assume that a majority within a commmunity, or state if you will, are going to have the same views that may be different from those in other states. Be those views on the death penalty, taxes, end of life decisions, etc. Which is why Scalia and Madison both said the decision on any issue not specifically covered in the Constitution should be handled by the states. Scalia ruled this decision should still be a state decision

Is this a decision that must only be made about disabled people, or are others in need of this decision as well? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Jewish neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Mexican neighbor? Who should decide whether or not to kill my Baptist neighbor?

And we make the loopy jump from end of life decisions to genocide. Maybe you could put up a picture of a death camp to complete the hyperbole. Each separate and sovereign state has laws against murder. But you already knew that didn't you? Unfortunately this fact doesn't help your hyperbolic jump much does it?

All situations that deal with end of life decisions should be left up to the family, unless the state has made a law otherwise. Even if a law has been made there will always be certain exemptions. Who do you believe should make such decisions. I can assure you without a shadow of a doubt, my family and I have reaffirmed with each other in writing at what point any tubes should be disconnected. So you ghoulish freaks that would have us keep anything and everything hooked to a tube won't be able to make one decision for me or mine

Or maybe we shouldn't single out any particular group of people. Maybe every individual should be subject to this decision. We can eliminate the taboo in killing, as long everybody follows the rules. Each of us will have a Designated Decision Maker (DDM) to decide our fate. The DDM will get to choose the hour and manner of our deaths. If you want to kill somebody for whom you are not the DDM, you'll need to petition the DDM for permission, and pay whatever surcharge the DDM deems appropriate. Parents will automatically be the DDM for their children. Upon marriage, the title of DDM automatically transfers to the spouse. Every one of us will have one person somewhere who gets to decide the time and method of our death. You've already established that the person for whom the decision is being made should have no say in the matter. (Or does your opinion on that only apply to Terri Schiavo Schindler, Scott Thomas, and Jimmy Chambers?) So, resisting your DDM's attempts to kill you will be a crime, punishable by a more turturous death than originally intended.

Again, your stupidity astounds. I have made no statement that would support your idiotic statement. I have simply stated per the Constitution of these United States, the issue of end of life and ensuing decisions can only lie with one group of people. The citizens of a respective state if they choose to address their legislature or the family member who has power of attorney in said situation.

Now I have a Supreme Court Justice and the author of the Constitution standing with me. Who've you got? A crackpot on a crusade at all costs (Randall Terry), a 'Nobel Prize nominee' who gets sued by his patients, and a Redd Foxx look alike who can't get anybody to vote for him.

107 posted on 10/25/2005 5:18:18 PM PDT by billbears (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: billbears

Again, you reveal your limitless stupidity. When you decide to kill somebody who isn't dying, that is not an end of life decision. That is a decision to end a life. All of my questions went over your head. That's not hard to do. You're obviously unaware of the fact that the 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

I see you learned a new word, and can't stop using it. Now if you'd just learn what hyperbole means, you could stop misusing it. Killing is killing. There is no hyperbole there. No matter which individual or group you single out for killing, it's still killing. That's not hyperbole. It's just the simple truth. Apparently not simple enough for you to understand, but still simple.


108 posted on 10/25/2005 5:51:39 PM PDT by BykrBayb (Impeach Judge Greer - In memory of Terri <strike>Schiavo</strike> Schindler - www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb
"If you happen to bag a cuckoo bird, send it to Howard. I've heard he likes them."

He's already got one 24/7. Think he needs another?
109 posted on 10/26/2005 9:31:22 PM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: billbears
You might be shocked at how many points of agreement we might have. I've used Deo Vindice as a tagline myself. I know you catch my drift. That said,

"Okay let's look at precedent shall we? Would Scalia's decision in Cruzan suffice? Who did he say should make this decision?"

How did the Cruzan case turn out? Was Cruzan able to communicate that she wanted to live, and do so? Chambers did. Think about that for a minute.

He said it should be up to the states, and it should. That's why we're trying to insure that state and local officials of the state of South Carolina do their job thoroughly, and decide on the side of life - which is Chamber's stated wish. If Chambers had said "I want to die", I doubt there would be be an issue here.

Outside help is encouraged for several reasons. 1). As we all know, public officials tend not to act properly - or at all - unless they know they're under public scrutiny. They'll be more likely to do their job when they know that the scrutiny is widespread. I doubt anyone would object to them actually doing their job. Do you? 2) Because the Cruzan precedent does not cover this situation well. Here, we have an injured man who is a rational being who says he wants to live. Then, he's drugged up so that he can no longer communicate, and the attempt to end his life begins. We don't want the court to set this new precedent that taking a life under these circumstances is acceptable. Do you? 3) Precedents from one state become the basis for decisions in other states. We want to stop it while it's just a state matter in South Carolina before it becomes a state matter in other states. Maybe all other states, potentially affecting everyone.

"If you are a South Carolinian, get to it and save this man's life. Allow your legislature to act as they see fit. Call officials you elected."

That's what the purpose of pasting the contact info was. Got it? Being worked on - and being worked on in many other states. If you are a non-South Carolinian, please use your influence to help us stop this potential precedent here - before you have to deal with it in your state.
110 posted on 10/26/2005 10:19:38 PM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: billbears
"Each separate and sovereign state has laws against murder."

Yes they do. The legalist (ie: the person who lets loopholes in the law justify his lack of moral conviction) might in some cases of killing, say, "That wasn't murder. The law didn't define it as such".

Consider this scenario. A person is injured. While rational and conscious, he says he wants to live. Someone orders him drugged into unconsciousness, removes all means of communication; and then is successful in ending his life. Is that murder? What do YOU think, billbears?

Would you, billbears, object if a sovereign state were to pass a law defining the ending of a life this way as murder?

Would you, billbears, object to a constitutional amendment properly ratified by sovereign states that defined ending a life this way as murder?

"All situations that deal with end of life decisions should be left up to the family, unless the state has made a law otherwise. Even if a law has been made there will always be certain exemptions."

I can go along with that. Lets say situations like the Chambers situation is one of those exemptions. The question then is, "should we honor the wishes of a rational, communicative individual who wants to live, or the wishes of a spouse who wants that individual dead." Billbears - which persons wishes do YOU think should be honored in a case like that?
111 posted on 10/26/2005 10:39:11 PM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: billbears
There's also a matter of honor. Your tagline, "Deo Vindice" indicates you understand the concept and it's important to you.

We're still waiting for you to either give *any* evidence that Jimmy Chambers was lying when he said he wanted to live -- or admit you have no such evidence. Or sidestep, or say nothing, and show you have no honor.

What'll it be?
112 posted on 10/26/2005 10:42:45 PM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: billbears
And while we're at it -- do you think a rational, communicative sovereign individual should have the right to revoke a living will?
113 posted on 10/26/2005 10:45:49 PM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Wampus SC
Wake me up if you get an answer to any of your questions.


Waiting

114 posted on 10/27/2005 12:21:11 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Impeach Judge Greer - In memory of Terri <strike>Schiavo</strike> Schindler - www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

This man's obituary was in the Yuma Daily Sun today, 10/26/05.


115 posted on 10/27/2005 12:27:31 AM PDT by Umanbean
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Umanbean; little jeremiah; Wampus SC; 8mmMauser

Jimmy Lloyd Chambers

Jimmy Lloyd Chambers, 79, a former resident of Yuma, died Oct. 24, 2005, in North Augusta, S.C.

He was born Nov. 15, 1925, in Cotesfield, Neb., and was a retired dispatcher for Holland Motor Express.

Memorial services will be held at a later date.

Platt's Funeral Home in Evans, Ga., is handling arrangements.

http://sun.yumasun.com/artman/publish/articles/story_20007.php




Could you ping to this announcement. I'm going to go throw up now.


116 posted on 10/27/2005 1:18:26 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Impeach Judge Greer - In memory of Terri <strike>Schiavo</strike> Schindler - www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

Is there possible a reason that a wife of 58 years might think her husband wants to die beside insurance money or she is a bitch? I am struck by the phrase "in that body". To me it speaks of other conversations where he might have said something about never wanting to live if machines did the work for him.

I don't know that any such conversation ever took place. I do know that a person who stays married for 58 years and has 10 children has some claim to know her husbands mind - when everyone agreed that it was clear. After 10 hours off morphine I hope Dr. Brookman is right in his supposition that Mr. Chambers was sufitionantly coherent to make such a decision.

I am not saying that Mrs. Chambers is not a greedy bitch who only wants to kill her husband so she can collect insurance money, however I am equally not comfortable saying she is. 58 years and 10 children with one man gives a woman insight into what that man thought during those 58 years. I only have one article written from a very specific viewpoint to go by.

Given the stated limitations of my knowledge I think it most likely that Mr. Chambers had made statements during his life that he didn't want to end up living like a vegetable, having machines live for him, something to that effect. I also think that when push came to shove he did not want to end his life - of whatever quality it was. His wife knew his stated views and could not reconcile them to his current view of wanting to live.

That is my read from this one article, and I fully admit I can be wrong.
117 posted on 10/27/2005 1:24:18 AM PDT by Talking_Mouse (Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just... Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Talking_Mouse

Her motives are unclear from the article. His wishes were very clear. The result was very definite. May he rest in peace.


118 posted on 10/27/2005 2:12:32 AM PDT by BykrBayb (Impeach Judge Greer - In memory of Terri <strike>Schiavo</strike> Schindler - www.terrisfight.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

I doubt they'll be answered here by bear, but they'll be answered. Sooner or later they'll have to be answered by everyone. Hopefully before the PTB's answer for us without consulting us first.


119 posted on 10/27/2005 2:25:19 AM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: BykrBayb

Wanted to live, drugged into a stupor, denied treatment for pneumonia for a while -- was it too late? Was that what did it? We may never know.

RIP


120 posted on 10/27/2005 2:31:09 AM PDT by Wampus SC (Serf City here we come!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 401-420 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson