Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, March 21, 2005 |
OT: Who's Brain-Dead, Now?
After a full day's worth of grandstanding (hey, it's not like the Government Oversight Committee has anything better to do than harrass retired ballplayers, is there?), why not go in for secondses? When a crook like Tom DeLay has nothing better to do than call the humane, unfortunate termination of Terry Schiavo's life "medical terrorism", you know they're hoping to get the moonbat vote. Especially when the poor gal has cerebral fluid where her cortex ought to be. She's not coming back, you nitwits. The only hope in all of this is that a few of them seem to understand what's at stake here, just not enough to get a majority.
Blecch. More baseball-related stuff later today.
Comments:
As you will, Tommy. All I can say is that the best diagnoses I've read say she is not now and never will be capable of consciousness ever again. Legally, her parents have run out of escape clauses. Her parents want her body -- for that's what we're talking about here, not her mind or anything else -- on life support indefinitely. Florida law gives the right to make life-or-death decisions to a person with no declared intentions to the spouse of the person so afflicted. Not to the parents.
I just don't have any sympathy for the parents, and I have nothing but bitter recriminations for a Congress obviously using this poor woman and her family for scoring political points.
I just don't have any sympathy for the parents, and I have nothing but bitter recriminations for a Congress obviously using this poor woman and her family for scoring political points.
You have no sympathy for the parents? That's an awfully cold statement. These people are losing daughter in an extremely agonizing and heart-wrenching manner - she is literally starving to death. I don't see how anyone can blame them for fighting this fight.
I'm with you for the most part on this, in that the law is perfectly clear in this circumstance (and I also agree that Congress has clearly over-stepped their bounds here). However, I’ve always had a problem with an individual deciding if another individual lives or dies. I’ve always felt that, in the absence of a living will, medicine should err on the side of caution in this sort of situation rather than taking the word of an individual who may not have the patients’ best interest at heart.
So I guess the lesson we should all take out of this ugly affair is LIVING WILL, LIVING WILL, LIVING WILL!
I'm with you for the most part on this, in that the law is perfectly clear in this circumstance (and I also agree that Congress has clearly over-stepped their bounds here). However, I’ve always had a problem with an individual deciding if another individual lives or dies. I’ve always felt that, in the absence of a living will, medicine should err on the side of caution in this sort of situation rather than taking the word of an individual who may not have the patients’ best interest at heart.
So I guess the lesson we should all take out of this ugly affair is LIVING WILL, LIVING WILL, LIVING WILL!
I can't say I agree with you here. I'm on the same page as Tommy. If her parents want to keep her alive, so be it. If her parents don't want to see her starved to death, so be it. Sure enough, her husband "owns her rights" in this case. Given the fact he has a common-law girlfriend and children born out of wedlock, I'm not one to believe him when he waxes altruistic about his wife's "wishes."
All he needs to do is relinquish control of his wife's care to her parents. Is that so difficult?
It saddens me that we, in this country, cry foul at the "treatment" of convicted criminals, yet are so quick to write off and consent to starve to death a woman who has done no wrong.
All he needs to do is relinquish control of his wife's care to her parents. Is that so difficult?
It saddens me that we, in this country, cry foul at the "treatment" of convicted criminals, yet are so quick to write off and consent to starve to death a woman who has done no wrong.
What difference does that make Rob? Frank McCourt has been without one his whole life!
# posted by 
: 3/22/2005 02:30:00 PM
: 3/22/2005 02:30:00 PM
The reason Michael Schiavo has a common law wife is because he has not divorced his first wife. The inference is that he's scum for taking a common law wife. The alternative is divorcing his invalid wife.
Republican members of Congress stood up and said that there is no finacial burdon put on the family by her continued care. They tried to defame Michael Schiavo by saying that by not walking away from his wife and leaving her care to the state and her parents, he's being selfish. That argument makes no sense. How can his behavior be selfish if he is not relieving a burdon on himself? Why, then, does he want her dead? If everything those Republicans said is true, then the only reasonable explaination for his behavior is that he truly believes he's trying to carry out Terry Schiavo's wishes.
*Every single judge* who has issued a ruling has done so in favor of the husband. The US Supreme Court affirmed those rulings by refusing to review the case. The law is clear, the proper procedure has been followed to the letter for years.
Republicans in Congress are using this sad, sad case to make political hay with their most conservative religious members. So is this President, who claims to value life, but who, as govornor of Texas, approved more executions than any other governor since the death penalty was reinstated. Now they can back down on the hot button abortion issue and still claim to have fought for "life". Religious conservatives should try to see past this individual case and be angry. Constitutional conservatives should be infuriated at the assumption of power by Congress. Libertarians should continue to be disgusted. The Democrats will continue to be divided.
Republican members of Congress stood up and said that there is no finacial burdon put on the family by her continued care. They tried to defame Michael Schiavo by saying that by not walking away from his wife and leaving her care to the state and her parents, he's being selfish. That argument makes no sense. How can his behavior be selfish if he is not relieving a burdon on himself? Why, then, does he want her dead? If everything those Republicans said is true, then the only reasonable explaination for his behavior is that he truly believes he's trying to carry out Terry Schiavo's wishes.
*Every single judge* who has issued a ruling has done so in favor of the husband. The US Supreme Court affirmed those rulings by refusing to review the case. The law is clear, the proper procedure has been followed to the letter for years.
Republicans in Congress are using this sad, sad case to make political hay with their most conservative religious members. So is this President, who claims to value life, but who, as govornor of Texas, approved more executions than any other governor since the death penalty was reinstated. Now they can back down on the hot button abortion issue and still claim to have fought for "life". Religious conservatives should try to see past this individual case and be angry. Constitutional conservatives should be infuriated at the assumption of power by Congress. Libertarians should continue to be disgusted. The Democrats will continue to be divided.
Newer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.