crunch time

[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.

[Karlos]

T_Bone wrote:
@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 it either. The entire legal case stinks, turning the unfortunate victim of a tragic, irrecoverable injury into a legal/media circus. Any shred of dignity she may have had left has been completely leeched away.

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.

Looking at it rationally (and this might sound a bit cold, so apologies there), this lady is already dead. She has been dead for over a decade.

Death does not mean the cessation of all biological function. Indeed, when you die the cells in your body continue to function for some considerable time (depending on their tolerance to oxygen deprevation). Ultimately death is the cessation of all coordinated metabolic function - the processes that seperate you from an equivalent mass of slowly dying individual living cells.

We can prolong the life of any tissue artificially by ensuring it receives nutrition and oxygen, but nobody would consider a person as being alive because their heart, donated for transplant, was now beating in someone elses chest cavity.

In this case, the basic biological functions of an entire human body are being sustained artificially. However, the single most critical function that seperates her as a person from her as a mass of living tissue has already been lost.

[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:

[Karlos]

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

...

[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)

[PMC]

Leander is right.

This poor unfortunate woman is existing solely because the reflex functions of her central nervous system (which are housed in the spinal column) are intact and still sending nerve impulses to her lungs, heart and digestive system.  If you move, her eyes will follow because it's a reflex response.  

It's a terrible tragedy for all those concerned, losing a wife and daughter must be truly devastating, particularly when her body continues to exist.

If it were me, I certainly wouldn't want to continue in that state and would wish that my loved ones would respect my wish to pull the plug.  

[Karlos]

T_Bone wrote:

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)

?

[Wilse]

@Karlos:

Perhaps Jesse Jackson is the vulture?

[Karlos]

@Wilse

Ah, I see. I was confused as T_Bone had quoted me then said it.

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?

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?

Which is more expensive I ask you, and which is more beneficial to society?

[Speelgoedmannetje]

mdma wrote:
 and which is more beneficial to society?

Somehow I do not think this point affects a conservative conscience. :lol: :-(

Speelgoedmannetje wrote:

mdma wrote:
 and which is more beneficial to society?

Somehow I do not think this point affects a conservative conscience. :lol: :-(

I didn't know there was even such a thing as a "Conservative Conscience"!

[Wilse]

Och away! Surely you've heard of compassionate conservatives?

[Doobrey]

Wilse wrote:
Och away! Surely you've heard of compassionate conservatives?

Oh, you mean that bunch of prats obeying Tony Blairs every whim ?  :-)

Doobrey wrote:

Wilse wrote:
Och away! Surely you've heard of compassionate conservatives?

Oh, you mean that bunch of prats obeying Tony Blairs every whim ?  :-)

The Liberal Democrats? ;-)

[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)