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

Skip to comments.

BREAKING - Australia Supreme Court just ordered removal of life support against family pleas
Australian news ^ | 12/19/07 | paularish1

Posted on 12/19/2007 5:00:27 AM PST by paulsy

"Paulo Melo, 29, has been in a coma at the Royal Darwin Hospital for two weeks, after severing his spinal cord in a car crash." - read more below: doctor requested, family objected, court granted

(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...


TOPICS: Australia/New Zealand; Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 4life; 6feetdownunder; 6feetunder; australia; barbaric; braindamage; braininjury; carcrash; coma; court; courts; crash; darwin; death; donotcollect100; donotpassgo; downunder; eugenics; euthanasia; forcedexit; georgesoros; hillarycare; hypocraticoath; imissyouterri; insurancescam; involuntary; life; lifeordeath; lifesupport; malpractice; medicine; melo; moralabsolutes; morphine; morphineoverdose; moveon; murder; overdose; paulo; paulomelo; right2life; righttolife; rtl; schiavo; schiavoed; socialism; socialized; sorosfoundation; spinalcord; statemurder; supportlife; supremecourt; suspiciousdeaths; sydney; sydneyaustralia; uselesseater; uselessvanity; whiterose; whiteroseresistance; withterriinheaven; wrr
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-163 next last
To: LilAngel
The majority want a choice. The majority choose to live. The majority do not want to be denied basic care.

That's what I have been advocating - a choice. Families should be able to make the choice. Not the state.

Do you have a clue what torture is? Stop eating and drinking, and then tell us how “euphoric” it is. It’s real easy for some folks to believe it’s no big deal when someone else suffers.

Please don't put words in quotes when replying to me unless you are quoting my post. It implies words that are not mine.

A straw man argument shouldn't really surprise me, though. After emotional appeals fail, that's usually next.

61 posted on 12/19/2007 11:12:47 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: paulsy

ABC News says he’s still breathing. The respirator was removed at 4:30.


62 posted on 12/19/2007 11:21:52 AM PST by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: highball

On FR, italics are used to indicate a previous poster’s words.

There is no straw man in the valid point I made. Slowly suffocating to death or dehydrating to death is most certainly torture. That’s just the truth, ugly as it is. If you don’t give any serious consideration to the victim, maybe you can pretend it’s not torture.

It makes it easier to deny his right to life if you pretend his life has no value to anyone, including himself.

It takes an awful lot of pretending to “justify” killing a vulnerable person. It takes words like “euphoria” and elimination of words like “torture.” It takes pretending that the victim has as little regard for his own life as his killers do. It takes a pile of lies so high you need a ski lift to reach the top.


63 posted on 12/19/2007 11:44:33 AM PST by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: LilAngel
On FR, italics are used to indicate a previous poster’s words.

Sometimes, but not always. I don't want any confusion about what anyone did or did not say.

There is no straw man in the valid point I made. Slowly suffocating to death or dehydrating to death is most certainly torture. That’s just the truth, ugly as it is. If you don’t give any serious consideration to the victim, maybe you can pretend it’s not torture.

Do you equate that with removing someone from a respirator? That is, after all, precisely what I was talking about.

It takes an awful lot of pretending to “justify” killing a vulnerable person. It takes words like “euphoria” and elimination of words like “torture.” It takes pretending that the victim has as little regard for his own life as his killers do. It takes a pile of lies so high you need a ski lift to reach the top.

So what do you make of my clear, legal instructions to my wife concerning treatment should I be in that position? Do I not have the moral right to insist that she take me off a ventilator, etc? Even a feeding tube?

64 posted on 12/19/2007 11:57:32 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: highball

Are you using the removal of a respirator as a euphemism? You do know it’s possible to remove a respirator without causing torture or death, right? When I talked about slowly suffocating to death, I was talking about slowly suffocating to death. I do not equate that with being properly weaned off a respirator.

I don’t know what situation you have outlined in your advance directive. I don’t know what it has to do with Paulo Melo’s situation.


65 posted on 12/19/2007 12:18:39 PM PST by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: highball
Yes, you've been advocating a choice, but for whom? The victim? No. It's a choice among the family, the doctors and the courts. The fact that the victim never relinquished his rights has no bearing. It all boils down to who owns him and gets to decide on his death. (Ever notice it's a "difficult choice" when they decide to kill him, but not when they decide to let him live?)

Why can't we go back to the way it used to be? What's wrong with recognizing human nature and human rights? What's wrong with letting people live unless they decide not to? What's wrong with letting people choose for themselves, instead of others? What's wrong with the idea that people don't own each other, and can't decide to kill each other for no good reason?

66 posted on 12/19/2007 12:52:42 PM PST by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: beezdotcom
This situation, as the facts have been reported, doesn't even come close to approaching my own standards for removing my own life support - especially from a verification standpoint.

The article said 20 specialists weighed in. With a severed spinal cord and 20 specialists saying the person won't recover -- it sounds like they have sought multiple opinions. Assuming sufficient verification has been there comes a point where keeping a person articially alive on life support is futile.

67 posted on 12/19/2007 12:58:47 PM PST by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: paulsy

The state has the power. The hospitals and courts are an institution of the state and doctors as well as judges are licensed officers of the state.


68 posted on 12/19/2007 12:59:06 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paulsy
I remember you.

Hopefully this family will get at least the small reprieve they have requested.

Prayers up for all involved.

69 posted on 12/19/2007 1:27:19 PM PST by BenLurkin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
I knew someone would try to make a comparison...but this is nothing like the Terri Schiavo situation.

The family is united in it's desire to keep him on life support, and there is no dispute about who (of the family members) has the legal right to speak for the afflicted person.

This is the government overriding the families will.

70 posted on 12/19/2007 1:42:57 PM PST by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Oh boy. Get ready for for the onslaught.

Never mind the reasoning behind the statement. I hope you like it hot.

71 posted on 12/19/2007 1:50:30 PM PST by Jotmo (I Had a Bad Experience With the CIA and Now I'm Gonna Show You My Feminine Side - Swirling Eddies)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: paulsy
the story might make more sense if you had posted the amount of words allowed as an excerpt. The man also had head injuries and we have no idea how severe they are:

Paulo Melo, 29, has been on life support at Royal Darwin Hospital after his spinal cord was severed and he sustained head injuries in a car crash two weeks ago.

His family was told earlier this week that life support should be removed after more than 20 specialists agreed he would not recover.

72 posted on 12/19/2007 2:01:27 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

Yeah, he has a brain injury. Why should that limit his rights?


73 posted on 12/19/2007 2:07:50 PM PST by LilAngel (FReeping on a cell phone is like making Christmas dinner in an Easy Bake Oven)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: paulsy

The state owns you, apparently.


74 posted on 12/19/2007 2:20:49 PM PST by JamesP81 ("I am against "zero tolerance" policies. It is a crutch for idiots." --FReeper Tenacious 1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LilAngel

That is appalling! 2 weeks is most likely not enough time for him to be properly evaluated.

I am otherwise speechless.


75 posted on 12/19/2007 2:25:01 PM PST by omega4179 (Bring me the broomstick of the wicked witch of the west.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LilAngel; paulsy
That wasn't my point. The poster misrepresents the article.

the poster writes:

"Paulo Melo, 29, has been in a coma at the Royal Darwin Hospital for two weeks, after severing his spinal cord in a car crash."

the details have been paraphrased to the extent they bear little resemblance to the original. And that's no accident.

THE FACTS: His family was told earlier this week that life support should be removed after more than 20 specialists agreed he would not recover.

76 posted on 12/19/2007 2:30:12 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: paulsy
Hello freepers - I have not posted on Free Republic in a while, so please forgive if I am not posting properly and don't pull the thread, k? ...

why do you feel you need forgiveness? Is it because you very well know you misrepresented the article?

77 posted on 12/19/2007 2:36:11 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paulsy
The “professionals” decide who lives and who dies...with the full backing and force of the State.

Sounds like what the Democraps in this country envision.

Orwellian nightmare.

78 posted on 12/19/2007 2:39:27 PM PST by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eleni121
Orwellian nightmare.

It's not what Ds envision. It is what is. While the state hasn't gone so far as the Nazis to count citizens as assets, quadrupling the net worth of their country, the basics haven't changed.

79 posted on 12/19/2007 3:44:54 PM PST by RightWhale (Dean Koonz is good, but my favorite authors are Dun and Bradstreet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
It is what is.

I was thinking of a nationalized health care system...as the worst case scenario for losing one’s humanity to the “experts”-—so it’s not here yet..but getting closer.

Yes the Nazis and the Soviets inflicted these horrors —not sure of you sense of counting humans as “assets”...they are assets intrinsically.

80 posted on 12/19/2007 3:55:58 PM PST by eleni121 (+ En Touto Nika! By this sign conquer! + Constantine the Great)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-163 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