Text 10227, 170 rader
Skriven 2005-03-25 04:46:13 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
     Kommentar till en text av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
24 Mar 05 22:00, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:

 John Hull ->> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>> 24 Mar 05 02:59, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:

 JH>>  John Hull ->> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH>>>> 23 Mar 05 00:52, Ed Hulett wrote to Ed Connell:

 JH>>>>  Ed Connell -> John Hull wrote:
 EC>>>>>> Hey, John.

 EC>>>>>>>> Hey, RICHARD.

 RJ>>>>>>>>> By the way, Commander Codpiece, when governator of Texas,
 RJ>>>>>>>>> sign a law allowing doctors to "pull the plug" without
 RJ>>>>>>>>> interference from families, etc. when patients such as 
 RJ>>>>>>>>> Shiavo, are in a persistent vegatative state.

 RJ>>>>>>>>> Republicans.  They have no shame, they have no morals, they
 RJ>>>>>>>>> have no ethics.

 RJ>>>>>>>>> They are the slugs of the political world.

 EC>>>>>>>> The issue is not pulling the plug.  She can live and breath 
 EC>>>>>>>> as long as she is fed and given water.  If you, Richard 
 EC>>>>>>>> Johnson, were to do without food and water, you would die 
 EC>>>>>>>> too.

 JH>>>>>>> I don't pretend to know what mental condition Terri Schiavo 
 JH>>>>>>> is in at this moment, but one thing I know for sure is the 
 JH>>>>>>> the federal government has absolutely no business getting 
 JH>>>>>>> involved in this issue.

 EC>>>>>> That has me puzzled.  I can't say with any certainty about her
 EC>>>>>> condition either.  All I know is what I've heard reported.  On
 EC>>>>>> the other hand, I can't
 EC>>>>>> see why the federal government should not get involved with 
 EC>>>>>> the killing of a
 EC>>>>>> US citizen.

 JH>>>>>>> As more and more information comes out on what has already 
 JH>>>>>>> been
 EC>>>>>> through
 JH>>>>>>> the cuorts, etc., it seems to me that efforts have already 
 JH>>>>>>> been
 EC>>>>>> made to
 JH>>>>>>> improve her condition to no avail.  I also have a very hard
 JH>>>>>>> time believing that if she is even partially conherent, that 
 JH>>>>>>> she wants to continue to live trapped in an unresponsive 
 JH>>>>>>> body, totally dependent on others for everything.  I would not 
 JH>>>>>>> want to live that way, and I don't know anybody who would.  I 
 JH>>>>>>> have left instructions so that such a thing can be done to me.  
 JH>>>>>>> So have both my parents and my brother.

 EC>>>>>> That is fine, but it seems a little far fetched to kill 
 EC>>>>>> someone on the basis
 EC>>>>>> of your preferences.

 JH>>>>>>> Allowing the feds into this, however, is opening a Pandora's
 JH>>>>>>> Box that we will regret, no matter what happens to Terri in 
 JH>>>>>>> the end.

 EC>>>>>> The Pandora's Box I see is the precident that a spouse can 
 EC>>>>>> have the other spouse killed on his say-so.

 EH>>>>> Michael Shiavo is engaged to another woman -- they live 
 EH>>>>> together -- they have been engaged for 3 years. All that time he 
 EH>>>>> has remained married to Terry. His claimed compassion for his 
 EH>>>>> wife's wishes is nothing more than selfishness. He wants the 
 EH>>>>> insuance money and the ability to marry his fiance. He's a CAD 
 EH>>>>> of the worst kind.

 JH>>>> He may very well be a cad, but that isn't the point.  I don't
 JH>>>> think its the money that he's after, however.  If it was just
 JH>>>> money, he's had at least two opportunities to become very 
 JH>>>> wealthy almost instantly simply by agreeing to turn custody over 
 JH>>>> to the parents.  He had offers ranging from 1 to 10 million from 
 JH>>>> private donors to do just that and turned them down.  I don't 
 JH>>>> think any insurance settlement is going to even come close to 
 JH>>>> that.

 EH>>> He already has a large insurance settlement. His motives are
 EH>>> purely selfish. He wants to marry his current fiance without
 EH>>> having to divorce his brain-dead wife. It wouldn't look good
 EH>>> divorcing Terri while she was lying there vegitating.

 JH>> What this case really boils down to, is that Terri would have been 
 JH>> dead long ago if her parents had not interfered.

 EH> Good grief! That is one of the most idiotic statements I have ever 
 EH> heard of!

Why?  Michael has been trying to remove the feeding tube for several years. 
The courts have ruled repeatedly that the parents have no legal standing.  Its
only because of activist judges that it took this long to remove the tube.

 JH>> Michael, as the husband,
 JH>> has the legal right to pull the tube under Florida law.  She has 
 JH>> shown no more than the dimmest recognition in all the time this has 
 JH>> been going on according to one doctor interviewed on WLS radio.  As 
 JH>> for divorcing her, how does one do that?  Michael is her legal 
 JH>> guardian and can't represent her and himself both.  He is stuck by 
 JH>> the system as much as she is.

 EH> Huh? He wouldn't represent her in a divorce! What lunacy! Did you 
 EH> even think before typing that nonsense in?

Several divorce attorneys commented on the case during call-ins on WLS
yesterday.  They all said that since there is no definitive evidence showing
what her actual wishes are, they would not take the case, since they would be
subject to ethical questions they had no way to answer.

 JH>>>> Bottom line, though, is that legally he is the only one who can
 JH>>>> decide what happens, and the courts are supporting that at both 
 JH>>>> the state and federal levels.  Even if the USSC takes the case,
 JH>>>> according to what I heard on the news this morning, it will 
 JH>>>> likely support the federal circuit court that refused to issue 
 JH>>>> an injunction yesterday.

 EH>>> Actually, there was no living will. He shouldn't have the right 
 EH>>> to decide to starve his wife to death. It isn't like she requires
 EH>>> machines to keep her breathing. All she requires is a feeding
 EH>>> tube. To remove that tube and make her go through a long and
 EH>>> painful death is inhumane. If someone was found to have starved 
 EH>>> an animal to death, they'd be put behind bars. Why is it ok, 
 EH>>> then, for Michael Shiavo to starve his wife to death?

Then who does have the right, Ed?  When she got married, her father gave her
away, symbolically releasing his right to her and giving that right to her
husband.  That carries over into legal precedent as well.  Michael is the legal
guardian, good, bad, or indifferent.  

 JH>> Like it or not, state law in Florida is being followed.  The 
 JH>> Florida legislature has to act to change anything now, and they are 
 JH>> not likely to do so from what I've heard on the news.  Every state 
 JH>> has its own set of laws.

 EH> Actually, no one has shown what Florida state law gives a spouse 
 EH> the right to order the death of their mate.

 EH> If you know of such a law, please cite it.

First, there is no evidence what he says she said isn't true.  Nobody can prove
that she didn't specify that she not be kept alive in this sort of state.  Nor
is there evidence beyond his word that she did.  Some have said he tried to
kill her, but there is no evidence of that or he would have been prosecuted for
attempted murder.  Her parents have gone to court at least a dozen times, and
have been found in every case to not have enough evidence to warrant removing
her from her husband's custody.  

I don't know how you feel about it, but I would not want to be kept alive in
the sort of condition that Terri Schiavo is, for the very reason that we are
seeing all this trauma going on around her, nor can I imagine that she would
want it to happen this way either.  

 JH>> Just for the record, I am not advocating for one side or the 
 JH>> other.  I am only trying to wade through the morasse of legal mumbo 
 JH>> jumbo and emotional baggage that has attached to this case.

 EH> So far you haven't been too successful in your endeaver.

I can't help it if people are letting their emotions override their reason.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin:  (1:379/1.99)