|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 21, 2005 18:44:45 GMT -5
uh oh...
|
|
|
Post by gambit on Mar 21, 2005 19:25:47 GMT -5
It does not matter what you, or me, want to call it, she would not be suffering anymore. I have some questions for you, Ryan. 1) Would it matter if she were on life support and they pulled the plug? They do this many time every day. Heck, she is on life support! 2) For the people who are on life support and are allowed to pass with the consent of the family members, do you look at it as assisted suicide? Think about it.
Would it be that bad to allow her body to go to sleep soundly, than to wither away?
Is starving a more humane way to die?
Ask yourself if you were not able to communicate, in any capacity, would you want to be in that state for the rest of your life? Would you not want your family to do what was best for you? (This is your personal preference, not something based on ethics, but your future in a condition such as Terry Shiavo)
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Mar 21, 2005 19:33:58 GMT -5
SImon, Simon, Simon, VERY disappointed in you Why does Congress have no say in this matter? Congress is exercising its ABSOLUTE right in Article 3 of the Declaration of Ind. and the 14th and 8th Amendment of our Constitution. Congress does it all the time. All Congress is doing is asking a Federal judge to REVUE the case to SEE if there is anything it can do. It is NOT, I REPEAT NOT asking to put the feeding tube back in. Ron: kind of agree with you. BUT no living will and going on his word, I guess its tough on her family. New girlfriend and kids. REMEMBER all she CAN'T do is feed herself. Her heart and lungs ( breathing on her own) work with NO HELP. BABIES can't feed themselves, either can other people who have depilitating diabilities, such as Quadrapilgecs ( spelling? ), Alzehiemers patients ETC. Should we kill them to if we WANT TO? Animals have more rights in Florida law. READ it. Why is it o.k. for Death row scum sucking inmates to have automatic appeals to a FEDERAL Court but she doesn't?
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bath on Mar 21, 2005 19:49:53 GMT -5
Bill I don't beleive it would be any worse then stopping a respirator. It is a great thing all the technology we have at our fingertips. It is also a tragidy for it can keep you alive even when you are not meant to be. I don't beleive from some of the reports I heard she would even realize it. She might actually say Thank You. I agree with Allen, putting a body to sleep peacefully would be better then any of the options this lady is being drug through. Bill I don't beleive in torturing anybody ( well maybe a few) I just know I would rather be let to starve,(if that is what you want to call it) then to just exist as a hollow being. Also we keep judging the husband. I beleive god is the only one who knows his true heart and will be his judge. The parents and family, might as cruel as it sounds, might be the greedy ones. Then again I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 21, 2005 20:00:16 GMT -5
Allen,
I wasnt disagreeing with you. i was just questioning if that is what you were implying.
I dont condemn anyone for that. In this particular instance i dont know if i would call it a suicide. I wouldnt necassarily call it murder either.
Your right starving is a less humane way to die. Thats worse than what a dog gets. My step dad just brought a dog who had been run over and was starving to death his leg was broken and needed amputation the vet put him to sleep. I think the woman needs better care than that. Defenitly no less.
Like i said its a tough situation. Id hate to be in the shoes of ANYONE involved.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Maenza on Mar 21, 2005 20:06:40 GMT -5
I guess this proves that we all need to get our living wills in order now. You never know when they might be invaluable.
Ron - as for the similarity of pulling the plug on a respirator, not sure if that is the same. As Christian stated, all she can't do is feed herself (etc). Without respiration her suffering would end much quicker than starving. Heck, I can't go more than 3 hours before I am "starving", she has gone days already without even being capable of communicating her wants or needs.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Bath on Mar 21, 2005 20:46:25 GMT -5
Bill she has gone 15 years without being able to communicate her wants and needs. So you have two sides speculating for her. I would speculate she is saying let me go. I am sure it is not easy, as for 2 years ago I watched my wife watch her mother starve to death over monthes do to cancer. This lady could communicate til the last weeks. I am sure this is hard on both sides. I would not want to be either. So yes everybody should have or get a living will
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy Plaster on Mar 22, 2005 12:02:08 GMT -5
I have to say I agree with Mr. Bath. But thats me. I think that either way you look at it, and no matter what side of you you fall on, Congress has no place in this matter. Thats my only outcry about it though. I feel for both sides of this woman's family. I'd want to be let go if I were her, but I do not agree with the way they are doing it. I understand that any other way at this point would be assisted suicide, but damn.. anyway.. just hope it all works out in her best interest.
J
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 22, 2005 13:58:06 GMT -5
Sorry I am way behind on this topic. As I said Bill cutting off her sustenance under these circumstances is completely inappropriate, but what I would counter offer is assisted suicide again that is just what I would want done to me in the same situation.
The husband claims she did not want to exist in such a state but he cannot substantiate it, subsequently no one knows if she wants to live in this condition or not, I know I would not want to continue if I was limited to only functioning as she is but that is my position and I have already taken the steps to make sure my wishes are undisputed. Considering that her will is not known and her present state, her parents should be allowed to care for her, I think the courts are wrong to have sided with the husband if his position is solely based upon his word of her wishes. I guess I would correct myself in saying that congress should not have needed to get involved in this matter and the fact that they are involved in the manner they are, is a concern.
Considering assisted suicide is not really an option in this country where does that leave her? Not feeding her is cruel but forcing her to continue on in this state, if we assume for a moment that it is her wish not to continue, is worse.
Though my wishes are well documented, what would happen if I was in the exact same physical state and a court, a state government or our federal government rules that they cannot simply cut off my intake, then what, my family is left with the daunting task of deciding which one of them is going to murder me in the eyes of the judicial system simply to fulfill my wishes not to suffer?
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Mar 22, 2005 14:21:24 GMT -5
Simon: What is your concern on the manner of how Congress got involved? They passed a RESOLUTION NOT a BILL to see if a Federal Judge would JUST REVUE the case.Basically filing a writ of habius Corpus, which is done everyday in this Country. Every day people appeal their State Cases with a Writ to have a Federal Court to revue their case. They did NOT ask for the feeding tube to be put back in.
|
|
|
Post by simon on Mar 28, 2005 12:42:38 GMT -5
Christian, sorry I have just not been able to get on here much, my concerns are that though this is a tragic situation I am put off by the fact that members of our federal government are suddenly rushing around to get involved. Again though this is a serious emotional situation how many more important issues are there on a National or Federal level that our government appears to be no where near as eager to address? For the vast majority of them it is my opinion that they are not doing this because they care about the life of this person it is because of the attention and publicity that they are receiving while taking very little risk to themselves politically, this concern is shared by the majority of people I hear speaking on the topic. I would like to see our officials being this interested and firm of position about resolving other more expansive concerns, and for my money I would really prefer to see them expend their time to solve the more important aspects of this problem rather than managing this particular instance. Such as right to die legislation, or survivors rights and responsibilities.
|
|
|
Post by CHRISTIAN BINNIE on Mar 28, 2005 12:56:31 GMT -5
Well now you are getting into a difficult area. If polling were done fairly, I'm sure peoples opinions MIGHT differ. Are there other important issues the Gov't needs to take care of? Well yes, and they are. They CAN walk and chew gum at the same time....I think...LOL Funny Republicans NOT caring about life! HMMMMM. Can we say the bad word..Abortion. Are they using it for political reasons?....SURE....Are the libs doing the same....A big YES!!!!!! No power left so let the judges legislate. Since when do Libs care about States right?
PLEASE remember, all Congress wanted was the judge to revue the case, NOT put the feeding tube back in. You don't see them getting more involved do you? Then they could have worked ( or still might, because of all the publicity ) on more "specific " legislation on this issue......
|
|
|
Post by Ryan Thames on Mar 31, 2005 21:37:49 GMT -5
excellent post
|
|
|
Post by Steven Lareau on Mar 31, 2005 22:01:57 GMT -5
....except Schiavo's situation seems significantly less graphic...
|
|