Posted on 03/01/2009 12:21:37 PM PST by greatdefender
I wasn’t insulting him because of his opinion; he insulted me because of mine. I simply responded to this.
That’s ridiculous. I’m simply saying that it probably would have been more humane to have administered the very drugs you would have outlawed rather than disconnect her from life support and let nature take its grisly course.
That’s a good point. I stand corrected.
I have NEVER suggested that people should be kept on life support indefinitely. But the FACT remains that Terri WAS NOT on life support.
You are correct there. I was mistaken.
Then you agree that Terri’s parents should have been allowed to give her the care that her adulterous husband refused to give her?
Yes, I think his guardianship probably should have been terminated when he decided to “get on with his life,” for equitable reasons if not legal ones. I also think Congress had no business getting involved. Furthermore, this case illustrates the wisdom of drafting a living will.
Why? Congress called Terri to testify, that is certainly their right.
Additionally, Congress had the authority to involve themselves due to the violation of the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendments.
Interesting. You believe that if there is no law making an act legal, then that act is illegal?
No, there are specific laws AGAINST assisted suicide in all but two states and a judge is trying to overturn the law in one other.
Correct. You are for more laws, I am for less.
No, LEGISLATION (i.e. LAWS) is necessary to remove existing laws. You and your ilk have NEVER understood that.
All true.As a health care pro for thirty years,the primary care Drs. always not only allow legal guardians of the patient to “pull the plug” on patients who have no hope of recovering to a dignified life,they most often suggest it in the most compassionate way possible.Although,I have seen Drs. like House(of tv fame)that just bluntly tell it like it is.Amazingly enough,most people’s family in these situations have been put through the wringer for years watching a loved one lose their faculties and suffer incredible pain,and appreciate the candor.
We ARE NOT talking about the cessation of extraordinary life support systems, we are talking about taking deliberate and premeditated actions that will ONLY result in death.
You have read (nor understood) anything I have posted. From the start, I have been for less laws and more freedom while you want to keep more laws on the books and have less freedom.
You statement that removing a law equates to having more laws is rediculous.
Death IS NOT freedom.
You statement that removing a law equates to having more laws is rediculous [sic].
Perhaps you should learn to use spell check and then you might want to learn something about the legislative process.
And forcing someone to stay alive is freedom?
You have a basic misunderstanding of the legislative process. ALL states have codified law and it is called the "Code" of that state. ALL laws stay in there and are either amended or nullified by future laws. To legalize euthanasia, either a judge must overturn the law or a NEW LAW must nullify it.
Additionally, like many libertarians, you confuse freedom with anarchy. There is NOTHING wrong with codified law, that is what makes us civilized.
NOBODY is forcing ANYBODY to stay alive.
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.