EBSB52

What life? Her body is pretty much just an empty box, the person inside it has gone. Why aren't you listening to her doctors, who say she is completely incapable of memory, thought or emotion? Don't worry, when this poor woman is allowed to pass, these same proponents of life will be fighting for some state-sponsored execution of a prisoner to be carried out. Can these people not understand about how they are playing God?

OK, so personal slam noted. Now support it. I'm asking the same kinds of questions many other people are, and with cites and comprehensive questions. If you want to be like the others who are posting assertions about murder and euthanasia but refuse to touch my posts, fine, you're with them. Furthermore, I don't expect you to understand this, but your reply is an Ad Hominem, meaning your reply is an attack on the asker of the question rather than the substance of the questions. Have a nice day.

sorry but wrong, he is absolutley the one to make the decisions, he is the husband, it is recognized by law AND religion to be the correct person to make the decision. over and over again. Politicians and people crying and holding candles are simply fogging the issue. TK What about the right to life of the hundreds on death row Ya, the chimp set records for # of executions by any Governor when he was in Texas. Funny how no one has answered my questions of gay marriage, capital punishment and socialized medicine. They seem to have all the answers except for the tough ones. what about the right to life of all the tens of thousands of dead Iraqis Right, many of whom may have supported the US function. The US doesn't care about anyone but their own agenda. what about the 'sanctity of marriage'. They all seem to preach that when we talk about gay marriage, then ignore it when it comes to husband/wife making medical decisions for each other. I haven't read an answer yet - just ducking and weaving... don't wait up.

Come on, the right wing and especially Bush is here to support Constitutional (and other) rights. (rolls eyes) Funny thing is, remember when the righties were complaining about the lefties fillibustering a judicial nominee in the Senate a year ago? Well, this is akin to the same thing, and actually fillibustering is consistent with the rules, just never tried before. Time for the righties to buy some mirrors.

Yes, I have first hand knowledge of a feeding tube. My uncle, after being diagnosed with throat cancer, was put on a feeding tube. Yes, he did consent to it. You are wrong when you say that it takes a professional to operate it. I personally fed my uncle through his feeding tube as well as cleaning it. There was no machine involved. It is a plastic tube inserted through the naval. When it came time to stopping extraordinary means to keep my uncle alive, it had nothing to do with removing his feeding tube rather disconnecting his life support system as his heart could no longer sustain itself. Feeding someone is not extraordinary means. Removing a feeding tube is euthanasia. A lot of people mentioned here 'quality of life'. Who promised anyone a perfect life? What's next, go into all the nursing homes and dispose of the elderly because they are a drain on the system or are making their family's lives inconvenient? What about the woman who recently woke from a coma after approximately 20 years? Why isn't anyone listening to her parents and brother who claim that she is somewhat responsive to stimulae? They claim that the husband has never allowed physical therapy. You know that loving husband who has already tossed his wife aside and started a new family. Why didn't he just divorce Terri and allow her family to take care of her? IMO his motives are questionable at best. I think until these questions can be answered, the courts should side for life. Chris Well, close, kinda.... http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=16106 euthanasia either painlessly putting to death or failing to prevent death from natural causes in cases of terminal illness or irreversible coma. The term comes from the Greek expression for "good death." Technological advances in medicine have made it possible to prolong life in patients with no hope of recovery, and the term negative euthanasia has arisen to classify the practice of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary means (e.g., intravenous feeding, respirators, and artificial kidney machines) to preserve life. Accordingly, the term positive euthanasia has come to refer to actions that actively cause death. The term passive euthanasia is used when certain common methods of treatment, such as antibiotics, drugs, or surgery, are withheld or a large quantity of needed but ultimately lethal pain medication is supplied. By the end of the 20th cent. passive euthanasia was said to be a common practice among U.S. hospitals and physicians. With regard to euthanasia in animals, there are strict rules and guidelines that ensure ethical euthanasia and disposal. So we have: 1. Positive euthanasia 2. Negative euthanasia 3. passive euthanasia Obviously this is a case of Negative Euthanasia according to this article's definition. The term connotates almost an opposition to euthanasia to me, in that it refers to withholding or removing devices that are artificially used. Also, the term, "negative" inferes a not or opposite meaning to me. Yes, I have first hand knowledge of a feeding tube. My uncle, after being diagnosed with throat cancer, was put on a feeding tube. Yes, he did consent to it. Consent to what, the removal or installation? If the removal, then did he have mental capacity? How do they know? When it came time to stopping extraordinary means to keep my uncle alive, it had nothing to do with removing his feeding tube rather disconnecting his life support system as his heart could no longer sustain itself. Either would have done the same. How is a feeding tube more or less life sustaining? One is more immediate than the other, but both arive atthe same destination. Feeding someone is not extraordinary means. Removing a feeding tube is euthanasia. ARTICLE: the term negative euthanasia has arisen to classify the practice of withholding or withdrawing extraordinary means (e.g., intravenous feeding, respirators, and artificial kidney machines) to preserve life. Although they do state the removal of intravenous feeding and we have the case here of a feeding tube, the essence is the same in the context of this article's definition. The distinction of the 3 different means of euthanasia relegates a feeding tube to the same definition: Negative Euthanasia. A lot of people mentioned here 'quality of life'. Who promised anyone a perfect life? Perfect life and quality of life can be worlds apart. What's next, go into all the nursing homes and dispose of the elderly because they are a drain on the system or are making their family's lives inconvenient? Hey, ever hear of soilent green? How about Logan's Run? We're all on borrowed time . COme on, let's not get carried away with extreme, abstract ideas. What about the woman who recently woke from a coma after approximately 20 years? Hear about the shutdown of socialized medicine as proposed by the Clintons and the proposal of the homophobe amendment? Tell me, how do you feel about: 1. Capital punishment 2. Socialized med 3. Gay marriage This is not an Ad Hominem against you, just a reality check for consistent logic. They claim that the husband has never allowed physical therapy. They claim, they said, I heard...... We will only know what we're spoon-fed by the media. IMO his motives are questionable at best. I think until these questions can be answered, the courts should side for life. All of their motives are questionable. We all have agendas. The law deals with the, Reasonable man standard to decide these kinds of matters; is it reasonable to shut down life support of vegetative people after 15 years? ...the courts should side for life In a related note, the high court just did decide to stop killing kids about a month ago. Now maybe we can learn to stop killing adults.... nah, never happen.

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this. It's just interesting to me all the high and mighty members of Congress intervening to assert their religious beliefs (that's what this is about with them, don't kid yourself) whereas no one is offering to pick up the tab. "We must save this woman, but you pay for it." Hypocrites. Wayne Perfect point. Although they have rejected the chimps privatized social security, they also rejected socialized medicine. Critical thinking requires: 1. the separation of the elements of an argument, 2. weighing and debating each element, 3. then the culmination of them at the end to establish a totality of facts/logic/reasoning/etc... What people use with the kind of logic that says to save her at all costs, but ignore the financial cost aspect of it do is #1 and some of #2, but none of #3. It's an incomplete set of reasoning, done to skew an argument to their side.

Right, it is playing God. It is the same group advocating death sentences be carried out for others. If there is a God, these people best hope for mercy from that entity for playing him and using his name.

I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Just like the "pro-lifers" who want to stop abortions but won't help single moms raise or feed their babies. Or fund birth control. Or support or even tolerate sex ed in schools. I'm not identifying with those people or their agendas and they leave plenty of questions unanswered. But at the end of the day, does the ruinous cost of somebody's medical bills allow any of us to call an end to their lives ? I'm not so much stating a position as posing some questions that won't leave me alone about this. So you're for socialized medicine? I posted a lot of questions in response to your original thread, will you answer them? It is financially unrealistic that anyone can sustain even 2 weeks in the hospital with privatized medicine, so with that it becomes a death sentence and/or a life sentence in debtor's prison when we are dealt blows like this even if we are the so-called responsible people with our lovely corporate-sponsored HMO insurance. Please tell me about your feelings here. I have no idea. It's another very real aspect of the problem. Exactly, but to call this an execution and to avoid the, "very real aspect" of this problem invalidates your claim. What is the answer? Can you draw an argument for socialized medicine from this situation? Can you muster an argument against SM with this situation? Please post either/both. See, with privatized medicine, what we say about our fellow countryman is that if their child has a sever medical condition that will require huge medical assets o cure - piss on them and their sick kid. Socialized medicine says that it is fine that your 10-year old child has the required surgery to save his/her life, even if at the cost of teh taxpayers. Can you see any basis for arguments against SM? Like it or not, this issue has huge components of SM within it even though the primary issue is that of who has primary power of attorney. Which brings us to the other issue of spousal priority, which you have avoided as well. It seems futile for a person to be anti-gay marriage and anti-spousal power of attny; it's a blatant contradiction. It seems futile for a person to be anti-socialized medicine and pro-save em at all costs for decades(to the family). It imposes a required duty on the family, but offers zero financial help. Again, a blatant contradiction. The above 2 paragraphs are a couple of the arguments I have against the Libertaian Party. I don't know volumes about the Party, but I understand they wave their majic wand (of avoidance) when faced with tough issues like social security and helthcare. Anyway, answers......

That's a very good point I never thought of. But in this case, it's not the husband making the decision. He petitioned the court to make a decision, and the court decided. The court based its decision only in part on the husband's testimony. nathaniel

He doesn't want her dead, he just doesn't want to artificially sustain her - there is a difference. I think he should have to go into her room and kill her himself. I think removing a feeding tube and causing her to die of starvation is a cruel and unusual punishment. The 8th Amendment has zero bearing here. Firstly, this is not a punishment ordered upon her. But it does seem cruel - problem is that there is no euthanization law in place to deal with this issue.

I disagree. We have the technology today to determine that NOTHING is going on in her mind. I can understand her parent's want to keep her 'alive', but brain dead and living off of machines isn't alive, at least it's not to me. - Jim Yep, lights on - no one home.

What purpose is served is a good enough question. Personally I wouldn't like to live that kind of an existence myself (note to self: get a Living Will - and a regular Last Will & Testament on the ball SOON). But an equally valid question is, who's going to decide ? And just how "dead" is she ? She's not on a respirator, her heart isn't going to stop beating because somebody turns off a switch. I'm trying to remember the girl's name in one of the original "right to die" cases, she'd OD'ed on pills and booze. When her family finally won a court order to take her off a respirator, she surprised everyone by going on living for a few more years, until she finally died in 1985. But nobody was allowed to starve her, or press a pillow over her face, or anything else to actively kill her. Nobody really knows what's going on inside her mind. Maybe death would be a release. But do we go around deciding who should be "released" from life's suffering ? She sounds like you and me - she'll go on living as long as she gets some food in her. But nobody was allowed to starve her, or press a pillow over her face, or anything else to actively kill her. Wait a minute, no one is shoving a pillow in her face here. Where does that come from? There is nothing active done here to kill, just that artificial means to keep her alive have been halted. What if they put a meal in front of her; would that satisfy you that everything had been done to "normally" keep her alive? Removing the feeding tube is the exact same thing as removing the respirsator or pace maker. I don't see the point you're trying to make her that it is different.

This is a very emotional issue, so I understand the convolution of many diffeent elements. Firstly, in a perfect world people would have these documents in order. I have a BS in Justice and am a process server, but don't have 1 document directing these kinds of issues with life or property. Fortunately I'm immortal, so I won't have to be bothered with these trivialities . Since this world isn't perfect, an order of succession needs to be in place and the courts have decided the spouse is the next of kin. Why do they do this? Probably because this person has a direct interest in what happens from a legal perspective. I think it's fitting that it's this way since a spouse cannot be compelled to testify against the other in court in criminal matters, a spouse can be held liable for the other if he'she gets into financial trouble, and the parents cannot be in these positions with an adult child. I understand your personal perspective and if I had kids I would feel the same, but it's not logical or even possible for people to have control of their spouses and their kids; do you see the impossible conflict? Furthermore, the right-wing has placed such a premium on arriages that I don't see how anyone, especially a right-wing supporter could denounce this line of succession. I don't mean exclusively you either, but any right-winger should be glad that there is this kind of jurisdictional control over a spouse in this matter; it supports the gravity of marriages. Finally to further support the weight a marriage has and the structure the right-wing would impose, we could talk about the sanctity of marriage versus gay marriage and the attempts to actually establish a Constitutional Amendment. With the House GOP fighting to reinsert the tube in spite of the husband's wishes, maybe they should think about this if homophobe amendment ever crosses their desk. ...but she never made a Living Will provision to that effect. Have you written every decision that you want made after death or in this kind of matter? If so, you are a minority. The lawyers, judges, and politicians are having a field day playing politics with the woman's life. They're compelled to do so - it's their job. But it seems to me that if this woman's parents want so badly to keep her alive and if she left no clear directives to the contrary, that there should be an assumption presuming that her life should go on. Wait a minute, are you an opponent to socialized medicine? DO you complain that people who cannot pay for their medical bills are choking us all and should be denied? Don't think for a second that hubby has paid even 1% of this bill. Constantly bed ridden for 15 years - the tab is probably over 10 million dollars. Personally I have no issue with the cost and am a proponent of socialized medicine, but I don't see how you can make these assedrtions since I believe you are an opponent to Soc Med. I might make a few discreet inquiries about ending HIS life instead of my daughter's. I might feel this emotional too, but maybe this is why it is better that someone with more of a direct emotional/financial impact should make these decisions. Did thy go bankrupt? I'm not saying that he did, but he might have. He certainly sustained financial hardship and presumably emotional hardship too. It's so ironic, because today that convicted sex offender guy confessed to kidnapping and killing that little girl in Florida. And he's going to get more due process than this woman who's never (so far as I know) even been accused of a crime in her life. That's not even apples/oranges. Criminal due process when they're trying to take your liberty or your life is far different from civil or administrative due process that governs other matters. Like I said before, the right-wing needs to decide how important marriage is. If it's so important that allowing gays to marry would be a blow to the sanctity, then that pretty important no other relationships should be allowed to interfere. So since the right-wing has taken that stance, they kinda run outa gas when they try to make us believe that the husband has fewer rights than the parents. This IS an execution, and the doctors agree it will take a week or two for her to die. And it's all so nice and legal. It's disgusting. This is not an execution, even if used in the most remote metaphorical form. The right wing needs to decide about 2 issues they keep contradicting upon: 1) Sanctity of marriage. 2) Socialized medicine. They keep knee-jerking and looking at small issues rather than looking at the issues macrostructurally.

Kinda funny how Reagan was given credit for the fall of Communism when: 1) The Berlin Wall (Germany of course) fell some 4 months after his exit from office. 2) According to the article Russian Comminism was still in power in 1991, years after Reagan left office. When the Communist Party (search) was finally driven from power in the Soviet Union after the failed hardline coup in August 1991, Kennan called it "a turning point of the most momentous historical significance." 3) The cold War had been going on for decades b4 Reagan entered office. ...why wasn't Bush 1 given credit, as he was VP during the Regan years and these events took place well into his term?

I digress ..... Hahahahha, seriosly, you might be right. I just read that in the forum and redefined "irony."

Actually this is likely far more ironic.... We had a cypres firing at Perris on Saturday March 12. I was outside and heard an odd freefall noise. I looked up just as his freebag was coming off his back. It looked to me like his cypres fired a little low; I would estimate it fired at about 500 feet and he had a fully open canopy (after a very abrupt opening) at about 200 feet. He turned once and landed. His canopy ride was less than 10 seconds. Jim Wallace talked to him about the incident. The jumper said he had recently transitioned from a left side ROL to a right side ROL and had forgotten that his main deployment handle was now on his right side. He also claimed that he had pulled the reserve handle, but I believe the loop was found to be cut. Haven't confirmed this though. Ironically he had just attended a safety day seminar on emergency procedures. Even more ironically, Perris has a raffle where they give out one free jump ticket to the people who take any safety course on safety day; he had won the jump, and had used that ticket for this jump.

is that...no wait...is that seriously a comparison between communist russia et al and the united states lead by republicans? ahhhahahahahahaha!ahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahaha!! whew!! man, i need a drink; good thing it's friday so that i can have multiple drinks. Well, we can talk about the similarities with the two: Utilitarianism - The most good for the most people. Do we see that ideology in both Communism and American Capitalism? I think so. Sometime the opposites get so extreme that they reach around and touch on the backside; thsi is a case of that. Look at all the right-wing federal laws hat have been passed since the Regan admin, they are certainly about the good of the whole outweighing the good of the individual. Now you ask, what's wrong with the good of the whole? Nothing, so long as it doesn't trample upon the good of the individual, such as in the rights of the US Constitution. See, that is what has separated us from other countries, we used to have this concept that the rights of the individual are as important as the rights of the whole and with this concept the rights of the whole are protected thru this. Now we have just gone straight to the rights of the whole, ignoring and undermining the rights of the individual. Even conservatives will echo this, but they will talk about the losses of the 2nd, for which I agree with. Is it better for the whole if guns are no more for the common citizen? Probably, but the individual will lose their right/ability to defend themselves. That's just one area of law, we can talk about the Overtime Law, aimed at RN's, The Terrorism Law, The PAtriot Act, The TSA and so many more.

That's pussy - totally different

There you go. You just supported his point. You want to see the country fail just because it will make the Republicans look bad. Ohhh, as long as no one dies from it. I have to say, as much as I disliked Clinton, I still wanted us to be successful in Somalia, Kosovo, and Iraq. I still wanted the country to be successful. The problem is that most of the Dems feel the same way this idiot does. It's why they fight everything that the Republicans try to do whether it is good or not. They would prefer nothing happen rather than something good happen that would make the president look good. It's disheartening. But don't threaten their patriotism. That's not PC. It's just a different kind of patriotism. W There you go. You just supported his point There you go, you just established that you will resort to misquotes to fabricate a flase scenario. My sentence in full was: Yes, but not at the expense of lives. You didn't place the, "..." after the, "Yes" which changes the entire message. When you cut-n-paste, pick apart sentences to take them out of context, you must tell the readers you are doing so so they can take that into consideration. Then I follow with: Actually I would like to see them start to follow the US Const as they dwell on it at every turn, and quit putting corp profits b4 people. This more comprehensively explains how I feel about it. You want to see the country fail just because it will make the Republicans look bad. Ohhh, as long as no one dies from it. No, actually I wrot etaht I want to Repubs to start to follow the much-touted US Const. I have to say, as much as I disliked Clinton, I still wanted us to be successful in Somalia, Kosovo, and Iraq. I still wanted the country to be successful. I never said I wanted the US to defeated militarily. The problem is that most of the Dems feel the same way this idiot does. That broad generalization makes a lot sense. It's why they fight everything that the Republicans try to do whether it is good or not. No, they fight because it is their innate disposition. They would prefer nothing happen rather than something good happen that would make the president look good. It's disheartening. And the Repubs didn't fight Clinton hand over fist? But don't threaten their patriotism. That's not PC. It's just a different kind of patriotism. W IS that a W quote? Oh geez, don't let's not break out the W quotes via the Bushisms calemdar. That's a quote source that would keep a stand-up busy for decades.

Do all conservs think like LImbaugh? Like Strom Thurmond did? Please don't make representative what is an abberation. Fine that you post it, but it seems like you infer ALL Dems buy into this logic whith the title: What is Good for the US is Bad for the Dems Do I want to see the Repubs continue failing to run the country in way that irks most of the entire world? Yes, but not at the expense of lives. Actually I would like to see them start to follow the US Const as they dwell on it at every turn, and quit putting corp profits b4 people.

Ya, and he speaks for all Dems, all liberals, etc...... whatever

To be fair, it's also quite possible a someone on the jury decided that no cop was going down for killing a purp/black guy/imigrant/someone before ever reaching the courtroom. That's why both sides get to scratch jury members. Fair, hell, that's the premise with which juries start when they hear cases involving cop defendants..... presumption of innocense - wish everyone could enjoy that

Once again, you recall wrong. It seems to be a very common trend of yours to put things out of context, of those most of us here have heard it. You are comparing 3 very different situations, the first one being a criminal in a criminal activity does kill an innocent, not because war, not by self defense, but by a criminal activity. The other one is a fetus, a baby in a woman's womb, who has done absolutely nothing, and it was decided that his life should be terminated because the inconvenience to the mother...., and the other is an ARMED CONFLICT against someone who had a proven human brutality, lenghty record...are far from the same thing. Nice try at spinning.... ...one is a fetus, a baby in a woman's womb... Isn't a baby a born fetus? Not your definition, but an objective definition. and it was decided that his life should be terminated because the inconvenience to the mother...., And how do you feel about abortions done after rape or incest? The ultra-moralists used to abort for these reasons, so morality strides both sides of the abortion issue. and the other is an ARMED CONFLICT against someone who had a proven human brutality, lenghty record So ALL wars are a product of this? Can't you think of one occassion where war was unfounded such as, let's say...... abortion?

Because there has to be some form of SS. We would have people dying in the streets if we did not.

Yeah, how dare they think that we should have ownership over our own retirement payroll deductions. The nerve of some people! Via corporations...... me for one.