Gothic.net Community - View Single Post

Granny-like_the_apple · 03-20-2005, 09:14 PM

I was going to write a long post responding to everyone else in detail, explaining how disgusted I am at the (mostly) Republicans who are trying to exploit a personal tragedy for political reasons, how sad this whole situation is, but it doesn't really matter. This is not an issue that should be decided by public opinion, last-ditch legislative attempts to stave off her death, the case of one woman who recovered after being in a persistent vegetative state (for five months, not fifteen years), or anything except the one thing that matters here: the law. It doesn't matter whether or not her death will be painful or painless. It doesn't matter if she's in a persistent vegetative state or has some higher cognitive functions. It doesn't matter what her parents want, it doesn't matter what Jeb Bush wants, it doesn't matter what the crowds outside the hospice want, and it doesn't even matter what her husband wants. It only matters, legally and morally, what Terry Schiavo would have wanted. What did she want? Well:

"Florida law calls for the trial court to determine what Terri would chose to do in this situation, and after a trial hard fought by Terri's husband and her family, where each side was given the opportunity to present its best case about what Terri would do, the court determined the evidence was clear and convincing that Terri would chose not to continue living by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine -- that she would chose to have her feeding tube disconnected. In a second trial, brought about by Terri's family's claims new therapies could restore her and that the existence of such a therapy would make her "change her mind," the trial court again heard evidence from all sides and determined that no new therapy presented any reasonable chance of restoring Terri's brain function. The propriety of these decisions -- from the sufficiency of the evidence to the appropriateness of the procedures used -- has been unanimously upheld on appeal each time."

I read the 2000 court decision here, the decision that said the tube should be removed, and the 2001 appeal decision here. Anyone who thinks that her husband is an asshole who just wants money, that her death will undoubtedly be painful, and/or that the feeding tube should be reinserted, I suggest you read at least the 2000 decision. It was about what she would have wanted. The courts have repeatedly and consistently found that she would want the tube removed. I'm with the law.

03-20-2005, 09:14 PM	#11
Granny-like_the_apple Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 517	I was going to write a long post responding to everyone else in detail, explaining how disgusted I am at the (mostly) Republicans who are trying to exploit a personal tragedy for political reasons, how sad this whole situation is, but it doesn't really matter. This is not an issue that should be decided by public opinion, last-ditch legislative attempts to stave off her death, the case of one woman who recovered after being in a persistent vegetative state (for five months, not fifteen years), or anything except the one thing that matters here: the law. It doesn't matter whether or not her death will be painful or painless. It doesn't matter if she's in a persistent vegetative state or has some higher cognitive functions. It doesn't matter what her parents want, it doesn't matter what Jeb Bush wants, it doesn't matter what the crowds outside the hospice want, and it doesn't even matter what her husband wants. It only matters, legally and morally, what Terry Schiavo would have wanted. What did she want? Well: "Florida law calls for the trial court to determine what Terri would chose to do in this situation, and after a trial hard fought by Terri's husband and her family, where each side was given the opportunity to present its best case about what Terri would do, the court determined the evidence was clear and convincing that Terri would chose not to continue living by the affirmative intervention of modern medicine -- that she would chose to have her feeding tube disconnected. In a second trial, brought about by Terri's family's claims new therapies could restore her and that the existence of such a therapy would make her "change her mind," the trial court again heard evidence from all sides and determined that no new therapy presented any reasonable chance of restoring Terri's brain function. The propriety of these decisions -- from the sufficiency of the evidence to the appropriateness of the procedures used -- has been unanimously upheld on appeal each time." I read the 2000 court decision here, the decision that said the tube should be removed, and the 2001 appeal decision here. Anyone who thinks that her husband is an asshole who just wants money, that her death will undoubtedly be painful, and/or that the feeding tube should be reinserted, I suggest you read at least the 2000 decision. It was about what she would have wanted. The courts have repeatedly and consistently found that she would want the tube removed. I'm with the law. __________________ When a person can no longer laugh at himself, it is time for others to laugh at him. Don't let mobile phone conversations lead to premature sex and pregnancy.