Posted on 03/31/2005 7:05:48 PM PST by wagglebee
That's a very good question, and there is actually a clear, rational answer to it. The difference betweem the two is the cause of death.
If someone sustains catastrophic injuries in a car accident and is removed from a ventilator, then his death has been caused by his catastrophic injuries. In other words, the fact that the body is unable to sustain itself without the aid of these machines is an indication that death is a clear consequence of the injuries. Keep in mind that I am talking here about someone whose long-term prognosis is not good . . . my statement would not apply to a car accident victim who is on a ventilator on a temporary basis while undergoing surgery that has a reasonable chance of successfully treating the injuries sustained in the accident.
If this person does not require a respirator but needs a feeding tube to stay alive, then removing the feeding tube changes the manner of his death -- and his death is caused by starvation, not by his injuries. In other words, starving a bedridden patient to death is no different than shooting him, because the subsequent action replaces the initial injury as the "proximate" cause of death.
Both the Schaivos and the Schildlers are at fault here, with the Schindlers and their handlers turning this all into an utter disaster for far more people ( those in the hospice and their family and friends,whom everyone seems to don't dive a damn about! ) that just the Sxhiavos and Schindlers.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Jeb is not above the Florida Constitution..
This is one reason why I've never been too concerned about "saving" Social Security and Medicare. I have enough faith in our nihilistic, pragmatic culture to realize that we will kill off our elderly long before we let them "destroy" our cherished nanny-state institutions.
The best legal minds in the world said he was powerless, period end of story.
=======
Get serious!!! With all the vast criminal activities underlying the brazen attempted murder of Terri (e.g., transferring her to the six month maximum hospice, a care facility for dying people, and then holding her there for FIVE YEARS while sticking it to Medicare for her care, is grossly illegal) !!!
Jeb could have easily and lawfully began a criminal investigation... and therefore could have lawfully taken Terri into protective custody... but Nooooooooooo... that would have been the lawful, decent, humane and constitutional thing to do... precisely what Jeb Bush should have done... but Noooooooooo... the gutless coward chose to allow Terri to be MURDERED by judicial oligarchy !!!
What was the reason behind this law?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Another advocate for free UNLIMITED medical treatment heh ?
Autopsies are the final authority on the correctness of the diagnosis. I hope this one is very detailed.
Careful - - you'll end up being called a "troll" by the newbies just like I was for daring to criticize the Governor of Florida for backing down from a corrupt county probate judge while an innocent woman was getting methodically and barbarically murdered for two weeks.
Don't bother them with facts. Reality doesn't matter, only their whacked out emotions.
How about legal killing? Is that better?
That is a rather strange inference on your part.
No, I thought I was clear.. In actuality, the Dems do have strong principles... it's just that we don't like what they stand for. Their message has been clear ever since I can remember, and they keep pushing the envelope. They don't eat their own; they rarely fight each other in public like the conservatives do. We tear each other apart unless we agree with each other 100% on every single issue. Any time there's any kind of dissent on even the most insignificant issues, we think we should throw the dissenting bum out.
This whole mess is despicable the way Terri was allowed to die.
If we're to be ruled by laws, then we need to make the laws clear so that there is little room for different interpretation. And we need to support obeying the laws even when we disagree with them.
There are too many legal scholars who take different sides of the issues surrounding this case for it to be clear. In such circumstances I find it disturbing that everyone is willing to blame the Bush's for not doing any more. Well, I'm on record as saying that I don't think they could have carried it any further and still retain any credibility that the conservatives are for the rule of law. We don't like what happened; it wasn't the lack of following the law that resulted in this situation, but it was the lack of a clear and concise legal understanding of what the law really is.
In 1999, FL "end of life" laws were revised to include "arificial hydration & nutrition" as life support and "persistent vegitative state" as a condition under which life support could be withdrawn. See FL statutes, chapter 765 for details.
George Felos personally lobbied for the revisions. Florida Senate President Jim King drafted the legislation. Jeb Bush signed them into law.
In retrospect, it seems pretty obvious why Felos, a strong euthanasia advocate, was trying so hard to make sure legislation would pass that directly affected the high-profile case which he had just acquired.
Jim King was responsible for restricting the original Terri's Law to one person and later publicly regretted agreeing to that much. He led the Republican opposition to the failed legislation of the past two weeks.
IMO, Jeb Bush unknowingly participated in this set-up. No doubt he'll put the pieces together over time and hopefully get as angry as the rest of us.
Don't know how true it is but heard on CNN that then Gov. Bush of TX signed a law that life support could be removed from Medicaid patients against the family or guardian's wishes. I don't know if feeding tubes were a part of that or not. If so, and the fact that this is only relegated to poor patients where the state would have to pick up the tab, then the whole "culture of life" has just become a big joke. Obviously, life matters only if doesn't begin to cost too much, then the have-nots and outcasts can be done away with. Nothing new here at all.
What would be the difference between this and the Soros/Felos crowd?
=======
It's nice to see you exercizing your power to dream. However...
that power may soon be prohibited by judicial decree !!! ;-))
.
This is the "culture of life"?
And some of the best legal minds said he wasn't powerless.
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.