crunch time

[T_Bone]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050326/D892CJ600.html

I really havent paid as much attention to this as maybe I should have, but why exactly can't the family be allowed to feed this woman?

I understand the husband (ex? he has another woman now) is the legal guardian, and doesn't want her resuccitated, but FED? Why are we starving her to death? Is her only problem right now that she just can't feed herself?

[T_Bone]

whabang wrote:
I can understand the wish to end her life; nobody deserves to live like that. But starving someone to death is cruel.

I think I had originally thought that she was on life support systems or something, but apparently, her parents could simply take her home and feed her.

If this isn't about resuccitation, what's it about? Does guardianship mean we have the legal right to not only refuse to feed someone who can't feed themselves, but forbid others from doing so?

I don't understand what the courts are thinking. I had thought this was about life support, but no.

[T_Bone]

Maybe it's the fact that there's no documentation of her will that bothers me. You'd think that any decision that would result in someone's death, would require documentation of the item justifying the decision. There's no proof that she ever told anyone what she wanted, yet her death is being legally ordered, based on this premise.

Normally there's checks and balances involved in any legal situation... but this woman is being legally executed based on something we can't prove but someone claims is true, even though others claim otherwise, and they happen to be family.

It seems in any dispute the compromise shouldn't involve death. When we don't have evidence to execute someone, we don't. This womans life doesn't even enjoy the due process we give convicted murderers.

I don't like how the husbands desires are trumping the parents here. He's moved on already, he's with another woman, etc. If the parents want to be the legal guardians I can't think of one reason they should be denied.

[T_Bone]

bloodline wrote:
I with Wain... let the woman die!!! If I was in that state I would want to die!

Oh yea no disagreement there! Me too!

What I definately wouldn't want though, is for the government to ASSUME that's what I want, even though my parents insist it isn't, and ORDER MY DEATH because of it.

I would hope unless someone could PROVE I wanted to die, I would be fed.

[T_Bone]

@karlos
"Of course, this is a deeply sensetive issue. There rarely is any agreement where emotion is in conflict with rationality."

Even rationally I don't like it. I don't like who made the decision. The government decided she is to die, not that she would be allowed to die, but actively killed. It's not an option that's graciously being extended to someone with no hope, it's an ultimatum that not only extinguishes all hope, but removes all options as well. On top of this, it's in direct conflict with the wishes of her parents, who I cant understand why are not the legal guardians after the husband remarried.

I don't believe the husband is a bad man, I don't necessarily think he's murdered her or in any way wanted any of this to happen, and I understand this would give him closure, but I don't really think he NEEDS this closure after having moved on already. At this point in time, he really should not be considered her guardian.

She's going to die, it's inevitable, and she's probably not going to know one way or the other, but the precident this sets is just bad. If the government ever ordered one of my children to die, and decided I had no say in the matter, I don't know what I'd do, but it's possible they wouldn't let me post here anymore from prison.

If I were the judge, I would have stayed away from the issue altogether, after giving guardianship to her parents. The way things are happening now are too messy.

[T_Bone]

Aw crap. Here comes Jesse Jackson. Oh no, aw crap. Oh damn, he agreed with me, damnit, I must be wrong. I'm getting out.
 :lol:

[T_Bone]

Karlos wrote:

There's a good reason I did that, I don't quite recall what it was, but it made sense at the time.

...

 :-P

Once the vultures show up, you know the issue is dead.
(heh, wonder what took him so long, wonder if he was perched on a cactus somewhere waiting for the republicans to leave)

[T_Bone]

mdma wrote:

The government decided she is to die, not that she would be allowed to die, but actively killed.

Now tell me Mr Conservative fiscal policy.

Who's paying for the medical care for a BRAIN DEAD woman?

Easy. It's already been to court, the malpractice suit against the hospital where this condition first developed is paying for it. It was part of the settlement.

Is it ok for the state to pay for SOME PEOPLES medical care when they are at deaths door, but not ok to pay for everyones basic medical care?

"Medical care at deaths door" and "basic medical care" are apples and oranges.


(anyways, money isn't really an issue here anyway)