Posted on 02/03/2008 10:18:11 AM PST by wagglebee
Contact: Michael Hichborn of American Life League, 1-540-226-9178
WASHINGTON, Feb. 1 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, released the following statement concerning an order by Delaware Court of Chancery Master Sam Glasscockon to give guardianship of Lauren Richardson to her mother, who wants to remove Lauren's feeding tube.
Lauren is 23 years of age and, due to a heroin overdose, is now in a persistent vegetative state. At the time of the overdose, Lauren was expecting the birth of her baby and reports indicate that she was kept alive to allow her to give birth, which she did in February of last year. Her daughter is now about to celebrate her first birthday, but Lauren may never have another birthday.
Of interest is the fact that, during the pregnancy, Lauren relied on feeding tubes and a breathing machine to keep her alive. Today Lauren has a feeding tube only. But there is a struggle going on regarding whether or not Lauren will live or die.
Lauren's case is more than a sad commentary on the plight of a family battling over what each of the opponents believes would be in her best interest. Her story is a testimony to the growing philosophy in this country that some, because of their condition, are better off dead than alive.
Like Terri Schiavo before her, Lauren is not dying nor is she in a terminal condition. She has been diagnosed as someone in a persistent vegetative state, someone who is very much alive but locked in her body and unable to express her desires to anyone. The only thing Lauren is relying on is a feeding tube without which she will starve to death. Lauren's mother, who is Laurens guardian, wants the feeding tube removed while Lauren's father is fighting to keep Lauren alive.
This family is in our prayers. We hope that, in the interest of respecting Lauren's dignity as a human being whose future improvement or lack thereof is known only to God, the court will listen carefully to those who argue in favor of Lauren's right to life. It is a tragedy beyond description when any human beings fate rests solely on the subjective opinion of others, some of whom truly believe that patients like Lauren have no quality of life and therefore are better off dead.
Oh, I will answer this, though: Like somewhere north of 80% of Americans under 30, she didn't fill out a living will because she didn't imagine she would be brain daamaged before her 30th birthday.
But I'm mystified at the idea that you think the law says that because she didn't do that she should be saddled with an unfit guardian and starved to death.
How much is that to a lowlife to kill his wife?
You clearly know that I've never said that she SHOULD be saddled with the situation as it was.
I can only conclude, that like wagglebee, you are not as certain of your position as you might like everyone to think.
Otherwise, why the constant misrepresentation of my position? You cannot win the arguement on it's own merits, you must compose little lies about those who think differently? Evidently.
Following the laws as interpreted by the Courts that Terry chose to have interpret them. Yes, by default, but that is our system of laws.
Is it moral to ignore the law?
What aspect of the law was the judge following when he left a clearly unfit guardian in charge of her medical care?
You mistake me for an attorney.
You foolish, smallminded person. No wonder the thousand questions.
The law IS about splitting hairs.
You would of made a good german.
So...are you sure you want to be calling me foolish?
As far as splitting hairs...I won't split hairs: You blame the victim. She died horribly at the hand of a man who had already tried to let her die from sepsis, and you blame her. Saying you aren't is not splitting hairs, it'slying through your teeth.
Let's make that a little more clear. "It's lying through your teeth". : )
Thanks for the edit, FRiend. send me a bill...I have budgeted 60,000 reichsmarks for this project. :-)
Hey, don't you think we could make more money if we bumped off some more disabled people?
My answer is you ought to off yourself and save the taxpayers the expense of keeping your useless carbon accumulating hide alive. How does that sound? Like it? {/sarc}
I’ll even be so generous as to provide you with a Hydra-Shok .45 bullet to get er done!
I assume you are referring to Terri Schindler Schiavo.
And since you are clinging to straw man arguments about money, I assume you are talking about Terri's financial situation.
Terri had more than enough money to pay for her own care; however, her estranged, adulterous "husband" spent Terri's money killing her.
So, why don't you answer this question. If your spouse abandoned you, got engaged, had children with another person, and told everyone interested that they wished you were dead, would YOU want this spouse making these decisions for you?
Could you please remove me from your ping list?
Thanks.
What EXACTLY did Terri do to bring this on herself?
Do you believe that ALL victims of crimes somehow "deserved" what they got?
Back in post 113, you said:
Unfortunately, as with a lot of people, she allowed herself to get in a postion where her own death was the most likely outcome.
So, yes, you most certainly implied that Terri should be "saddled" with the outcome.
Which ping list are you referring to? I don’t see where you are on any of my ping lists.
life
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.