Posted on 07/13/2008 10:44:43 AM PDT by wagglebee
Why should winning the Boston Marathon be a prerequisite to the right to life? She had as much right to live as you do. He disabilities did not make her less human. Lack of humanity is what does that. So if being less human subjects someone to a torturous death, you better take care.
First, it is HIPAA, not HIPPA. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
Second, the Privacy Rule of HIPAA took effect April 14, 2003. Schiavo's extensive medical records and testimony were in public court documents long before 2003.
See #24
Matthew 7:3
Good point.
My understanding is that atrophy doesn’t happen that rapidly, though.
I think most reasonable people would agree that there wasn’t really much left of Terri by the time they pulled the tubes.
It is much more problematic whether reasonable doubt existed as to her condition when the decision was made. Doctors are fallible.
However, Terri DID NOT have problems breathing on her own. Additionally, Judge Greer refused to allow a swallow test, so we have no way of knowing if she could eat or drink on her own. We DO know that she was denied rehabilitative therapy for a decade.
An attempt at humor?
Btw, he was thrown out of his church because of his participation in Terri's murder.
“I would not have had the feeding tubes removed based on what was known at the time about her brain’s condition.”
Which was very little really. CT scans - and old ones at that.
She had something implanted in an experimental procedure that prevented her from receiving MRI’s.
They could have removed it and had MRI’s done to help ascertain her condition, but Michael blocked that type of thing.
And since she has died, there have been many article writtens about people in this situation, and new testing done to try and see what is happening in their brains.
Too bad no one got a better look at hers.
“Based on what the autopsy apparently showed to be the actual conditions, I believe an appropriate decision was made.”
vegetateive state cannot be diagnosed from autopsy - impossible.
Autopsy showed a shunken brain - which is typical in someone who has been dehydrated (especially for 2 weeks).
Autopsy showed she was very likely blind, or severely vision impaired.
“Rather than “shutting her off” in a humane way, we pretend we’re not really killing her by doing so slowly over a two week period.”
That’s exactly it.
Do you simply admit “let’s directly kill her” by injecting her with some heart stopping potion like we do with murderers on death row? (in that sense - they receive more mercy)
Or do we pretend we aren’t “directly” killing someone by putting them through a 2 week long process?
“If witholding water isn’t active killing, why should witholding oxygen be, for example?”
good question.
Go back to #21.
Matthew 25:31-46
She was not living a life I would have chosen from a list of 14 possible patented lifestyles including Prizewinning Pastry CookTM, Bahama Beach BabeTM, and Contented Matriarch in a Rustic Country PlaceTM, , but it was the only life she had. One of her nurses, Carla Sauer Iler, says that when Terri was under her care, she could enjoy being fed jello froma spoon, loved a lotion back-rub, became more animated when her
Hey, I can relate to that.
Enjoying all the little things in life that you can enjoy, living with people who care for you (her parents), loving and being loved: who says this is not a life worth living? Who says she's "better off" rotting in the ground?
It was not she, but her estranged husband (who inherited everything) who chose the latter option for her. I think I'm entitled to say that Michael is the creepy one.
21 is not a personal insult aimed at another FR member as both 24 and 28 are.
It has been shown pvs is misdiagnosed 40 - 45% of the time.
More is being learned about the state of being minimally conscious.
Now they think that previosly diagnosed cases of pvs could really have been minimally conscious.
Perfect!
**********************
Perfect, indeed!
Thanks for the ping, wagglebee.
You put that very well.
You have a habit of bringing the facts into it, right when the botflies have a good emotional rant going.
*******************
Exactly right.
Those are all good points, but more or less irrelevant.
The law at the time was that her husband was entitled to be the one to make decisions about her care.
The court, probably appropriately, rejected her parents’ claim for custody.
Then Congress had to jump into the middle of the issue, ineffectively, and in the process alienate many millions of voters. It looked to the considerable majority of Americans to be pandering to its base by the GOP. I’m sure that some in Congress had entirely ethical reasons for their votes, but that’s not how it was perceived.
Congress should make general rules (I think they’re called laws) and then let the courts decide how those rules apply. When the laws need changing, as shown by a particular case, the law should be re-examined. Congress should not attempt to micro-manage particular cases, something it is just not equipped to do.
Besides, it invites strong accusations of partiality. Anybody want to guess how many cases somewhat similar to Terri’s have arisen over the last 10 years without gaining any notice, usually because there was no family disagreement? If the family is united on a decision to pull the tubes there is no moral issue involved? What about when the whole family stands to gain an inheritance that is being relentlessly whittled away by medical care?
Bump!
Hey, YOU just need to concentrate on “Omelet Chef”.
Have you noticed that the botflies seem to scatter when irrefutable FACTS are brought up?
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.