Posted on 03/22/2005 7:27:57 AM PST by Pendragon_6
As this is written, the feeding tube of Terri Schiavo has been removed by order of Judge George Greer and, unless a federal court intervenes, she will die a painful death by starvation in a period ranging from four to 20 days. In all the discussion of this case it seems to me that its essential morality has been overlooked. The argument seems to rage about who has the final authority in sentencing her to death. Which legislature or court, state or federal? The husband or the family? This misses the central point: Should any political entity or any individual have the right to sentence a person in a "persistent vegetative state" to death?
We need to be clear. Removing the feeding tube from Terri is not "allowing nature to take its course" or "allowing her to die." If a man locks his daughter in a closet for two weeks and gives her no food or drink, he is causing her death. Nobody would speak of letting nature take it course but about homicide. We have here a court-ordered homicide. No governmental agency or private individual should have authority to impose a sentence of this sort on an innocent human being.
Continued
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
See, now you're just being silly and that hurts your case.
Aren't the implications for this - why should I buy serious medical insurance, the govt. will always pay for me to get the care I need to live?
Laws made in haste don't pass away as fast. We are about to face a whole lot of ageing Baby Boomers who may now have found their last way to bilk the system.
I saw an interview with Judge Greer last night in which he described the video that everyone is seeing on the news channels. You know, the one where Terri is tracking the balloon hung over her head. The Judge went on to say he had ordered to see ALL of the videos, which totaled hours of viewing. After viewing ALL of the video from start to finish he said Terri was unable to repeat any of what we are seeing on TV every day.
About what? Knowing that this happens regularly? Or believing that this should be stopped?
Remember "just following orders"? That defense didn't fly at Nuremburg.
"The trial court heard testimony from five experts: two selected by Michael, two selected by the Schindlers, and one independent expert selected by the trial court. The two experts selected by Michael and the independent expert agreed that Terri was in a persistent vegetative state and that her actions were limited to mere reflexes. The two experts chosen by the Schindlers disagreed, but the trial court found their positions not credible. For instance, the trial court explained:
At first blush, the video of Terry Schiavo appearing to smile and look lovingly at her mother seemed to represent cognition. This was also true for how she followed the Mickey Mouse balloon held by her father. The court has carefully viewed the videotapes as requested by counsel and does find that these actions were neither consistent nor reproducible. For instance, Terry Schiavo appeared to have the same look on her face when Dr. Cranford rubbed her neck. Dr. Greer testified she had a smile during his (non-videoed) examination. Also, Mr. Schindler tried several more times to have her eyes follow the Mickey Mouse balloon but without success. Also, she clearly does not consistently respond to her mother. The court finds that based on the credible evidence, cognitive function would manifest itself in a constant response to stimuli.
The experts also disagreed about whether any treatment could improve Terri's condition. The two experts selected by the Schindlers each proposed a potential therapy method, but the trial court rejected both of them based on "the total absence of supporting case studies or medical literature."
The whole bottom line on this issue is......Do we want bureaucrats second guessing every piece of medical advice and every treatment prescribed by a Physian because they "feel" that not enough has been done?
My wife is a RN, and in a discussion with Doctors last night, it was articulated by the Doctors that their whole fear of this outcome is that they will indeed be scrutinized for every treatment by a bureaucrat. They are afraid thatthey might have to obtain court orders and review for EVERY controversial treatment or diagnosis because someone disagrees with their opinion. How many SECOND OPINIONS are necessary to be considered sound medical advice?
It is hard enough getting medical treatment by participating in certain HMO's who have people accepting and rejecting procedures based upon percieved need!
Do we really need another level of bureaucratic review for health care or hospice care?
We as a society do not want Judicial Review in private medical decisions. We as a society do not want big government interfering in our individual rights. We as a society do now want unconsitutional Federal Government interference in matters designated to State Juristiction.
This whole case was not reviewed by the Supreme Court based upon Constitutional measures designed to allow states autonomity in serving the people's needs.
And after 15 years of reviews and second guessing and second third opinions......absolutely nothing has changed in this case, and nothing will.
The husband has been dealt the agonizing decisions in this matter by the current law. And regardless of if he is percieved to be a non qualified, scum sucking adulterer, that is not a basis to trample his rights granted by the specific laws of Florida that relate to this kind of medical decision.
I cannot believe that our party that prides itsself in promoting less big government interference in our personal lives is promoting EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE HERE!
What hypocracy!
What's the difference between starving her to death and shooting her in the head?
If I had to choose a way to go, I'd probably go with the latter. How about you?
Hildy thinks: To me, it is inhumane to keep somebody alive in her condition.
Ingrid Newkirk thinks: "... the only kind option for some animals is to put them to sleep forever," ``I don't think a dog living in a cage walking in circles for the rest of its life in a dog prison is a swell thing."
The similar line of thought is very interesting.
Are you willing to pay 75% of your income in taxes so we can keep people alive indefinitely no matter what condition they are in? Please be honest, because that's what will happen. If you are, my hat's off to you. But it's not going to happen.
We like to keep our little murders quiet, understandably.
I am certainly not using that phrase. Many people ignorantly are. Many people (yourself included, apparently) seem to think it's fine and dandy to deprive a person of water until she is dead. All because she can't "respond" in a manner you deem human enough to count.
The door is now being opened to kill them for financial reasons.
financial reasons have been used and continue to be used regularly as a basis for continuing or discontinuing treatments ever since doctors started getting paid.
Combined with sound medical advice and other opinions, somewhere a line has to be drawn.
I don't care about the money. The important question lies in what constitutes ordinary and extraordinary care. The provision of food and water does not constitute extraordinary care.
(Also, I based my thoughts partly on psyiogomy. As a portrait artist for decades, I concur with this study that peoples real personality starts showing in their face by age thirty. I did not like what I saw in this judges photo - looked like a smarmy clintonista to me...)
Is there any way to find out if the Hospice took out a life insurance policy on her?
AND, do they do this for other patients that they 'helped along'.
Heh. Bottom line is only a fool believes what Michael Schiavo has to say. About anything. Especially his bullshit claim that Terri told him she did not want to live in such a way
This whole case is built on M Schiavo's bullshit claim. A very thin gruel. Terri has family that loves her and will care for her. Time to let go or be damned, Michael.
and someone else told us: "As ye have done unto the least of these, my children, ye have done it unto me."
Lotsa people creeps are gonna find themselves before a different bar one day
Bill O'Reilly doesn't know crap from shinola. And that's the truth.
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.