Text 10330, 223 rader
Skriven 2005-03-27 05:12:18 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 10227 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
JH> 24 Mar 05 22:00, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:
JH> 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!
JH> Why? Michael has been trying to remove the feeding tube for several
JH> years. The courts have ruled repeatedly that the parents have no legal
JH> standing. Its only because of activist judges that it took this long to
JH> remove the tube.
Unbelievable! Are you saying that it was "activist judges" who have kept her
from starving to death? So the preservation of a human life is judicial
activism?!?!??
Yowza!
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?
JH> Several divorce attorneys commented on the case during call-ins on WLS
JH> yesterday. They all said that since there is no definitive evidence
JH> showing what her actual wishes are, they would not take the case, since
JH> they would be subject to ethical questions they had no way to answer.
Good grief! So they wouldn't take the case for divorce since her wishes haven't
been written down, but it's ok to starve her to death without her wishes about
that known? You can't really be serious!
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?
JH> Then who does have the right, Ed? When she got married, her father gave
JH> her away, symbolically releasing his right to her and giving that right
JH> to her husband. That carries over into legal precedent as well.
JH> Michael is the legal guardian, good, bad, or indifferent.
But he shouldn't have the right to have her starved to death. I can understand
refusing to allow heroic measures in the case of her not surviving unless she
was on a respirator, but to order her starved to death is a completely
different thing!
My grandmother had several strokes putting her into a state where she had to be
fed by hand and she had as much recognition of other as I have seen Terri
Shiavo show. She lived for 12 years in a nursing home because none of us could
care for her. She died naturally. We didn't starve her to death. We sold the
farm my father grew up on and used that money to pay for her care while she was
alive. By the time she died there was no money left. We didn't look at her like
Michael Shiavo looks at Terri. We considered her a human being and deserving
the dignity of life.
My mother had a severe stroke in 1996 and was in the hospital for 2 months
plugged into a respirator. They weaned her off it and we had to put her in a
nursing home. Six weeks later, she went into the hospital for pneumonia and a
bladder infection. She had told us that she didn't want heroic measures taken
to maintain her life and had a living will drawn up stating so. While in the
hospital for the second time, she had to be put on a resperator again. This
time, my sisters and I told them to abide by her wishes and take her off the
machine. She still faught on for another 10 hours.
I know a bit more about such issues than you might think. In Terri Shiavo's
case, her life does not rely on heroic measures. She merely depends on a
feeding tube. I read where several doctors have stated that with theoropy she
could start swollowing food. This would move her from needing a feeding tube to
eating with help.
At what point did she cease being a human being deserving human dignity?
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.
JH> First, there is no evidence what he says she said isn't true. Nobody
JH> can prove that she didn't specify that she not be kept alive in this
JH> sort of state. Nor is there evidence beyond his word that she did.
JH> Some have said he tried to kill her, but there is no evidence of that or
JH> he would have been prosecuted for attempted murder. Her parents have
JH> gone to court at least a dozen times, and have been found in every case
JH> to not have enough evidence to warrant removing her from her husband's
JH> custody.
Oh, so since, in your opinion, no one can prove she didn't ask to die it's ok
for her husband to ask for her to be starved to death?
So if the court were to say you should be put to death because your guardian
wanted you dead it's ok?
JH> I don't know how you feel about it, but I would not want to be kept
JH> alive in the sort of condition that Terri Schiavo is, for the very
JH> reason that we are seeing all this trauma going on around her, nor can I
JH> imagine that she would want it to happen this way either.
It doesn't matter what you *think* or *feel* about it, ordering someone starved
to death because they can't feed themself is not right. It isn't humane.
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.
JH> I can't help it if people are letting their emotions override their
reason.
Good grief! Get off your high horse.
Ed
--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
* Origin: (1:123/789.0)
|