Text 10629, 319 rader
Skriven 2005-03-30 01:18:31 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 10553 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:

 EH>>>> Unbelievable! Are you saying that it was "activist judges" who
 EH>>>> have kept her from starving to death? So the preservation of a
 EH>>>> human life is judicial activism?!?!??

 EH>>>> Yowza!

 JH>>> No, I'm saying what I've said all along, that this is a situation
 JH>>> that should be between family members, their clergy if any, and
 JH>>> doctors ONLY. That NO judge, at any level, has the right to
 JH>>> interfere.  If the state doesn't like that, then the legislature
 JH>>> should pass laws accordingly, but until they do, everybody else
 JH>>> should stay the hell out of it.

 EH>> So, the judge who ordered her tube removed until she is dead
 EH>> should have stayed out of it too?

 JH> Yes.

Ok.

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

 EH>>>> But he shouldn't have the right to have her starved to death. I
 EH>>>> can understand refusing to allow heroic measures in the case of
 EH>>>> her not surviving unless she was on a respirator, but to order
 EH>>>> her starved to death is a completely different thing!

 JH>>> And we both know by now that the people arguing on both sides of
 JH>>> this down there in Florida are hand picked advocates for each side.
 JH>>>   This is a power struggle just as surely as if it were a contested
 JH>>> seat in Congress, because the winner will help set precedents in
 JH>>> future cases that come up.

 EH>> Good giref. We know no such thing.

 JH> Then you have not seen some of the news reports that I have, and
 JH> probably vice versa.  Michael's legal beagle is a ghoul, in my opinion,
 JH> judging from some of the things he's said.  The people on the parent's
 JH> side are just as bad, in their own way.

Michael's lawyer is immoral. I have yet to see or hear anything from people on
the other side who matches his depravity.

 JH>>> That's why the courts should not be involved.  The situation is
 JH>>> horrendous enough without complicating it ten fold with judicial
 JH>>> activism on BOTH sides all the way to the USSC!

 EH>> What activism are you talking about?

 EH>>>> My grandmother had several strokes putting her into a state where
 EH>>>> she had to be fed by hand and she had as much recognition of
 EH>>>> other as I have seen Terri Shiavo show. She lived for 12 years in
 EH>>>> a nursing home because none of us could care for her. She died
 EH>>>> naturally. We didn't starve her to death. We sold the farm my
 EH>>>> father grew up on and used that money to pay for her care while
 EH>>>> she was alive. By the time she died there was no money left. We
 EH>>>> didn't look at her like Michael Shiavo looks at Terri. We
 EH>>>> considered her a human being and deserving the dignity of life.

 JH>>> I have to ask what she would have told you after several years of
 JH>>> being trapped in a body that was useless?  Nobody wants to die, but
 JH>>> it isn't unreasonable for someone under such circumstances to want
 JH>>> to do so.  I don't know about you, but I couldn't stand it, and I
 JH>>> have a real hard time believing anybody else would choose that
 JH>>> state over ending it.

 EH>> Unlike you, I do not attempt to play God. It isn't up to me to say
 EH>> either way. My grandmother did not suffer. Her every need was
 EH>> cared for.  It was painful for us, her loved ones to see her like
 EH>> she was, but that doesn't rationalize having her put to death by
 EH>> starvation.

 JH> Again, I have to ask what HER wishes would have been if she had a
 JH> choice.

No one knows what her wishes were. She wasn't in a condition to tell anyone. I
do know she didn't want heroic measures taken, but none were taken.

 JH> I don't consider keeping someone alive by artificial means,
 JH> even if there is supposedly no pain, who is in a coma or otherwise
 JH> trapped in a body that will never function normally again as having any
 JH> kind of quality of life.  Let me ask you:  If you were in a situation
 JH> like that, regardless of the reason, where you couldn't move any part of
 JH> your body, couldn't speak, and dependant on somebody else for
 JH> everything, would you want to continue living?

I sure wouldn't want someone else to make that decision for me. If I had not
taken the time and effort to make out a living will, it isn't someone else's
duty to make that decision in my stead.

If I was in such a condition I certainly wouldn't like it if some judge ordered
that my feeding tube be removed until I died.

 JH> Hoping against all reason for a miracle in such a situation is
 JH> understandable but it certainly isn't realistic or rational, yet all too
 JH> often relatives simply can't make life or death decisions because they
 JH> can't get past their own grief and sense of loss.  I have seen too many

Good grief! Get down off that high horse.

 JH> friends who have gone through this, and not a few of my own family
 JH> members, where they are unable to let someone go, ruining the financial
 JH> state of the family to the extent of destitution in some cases, and for

You consider finances more important than family?

 JH> what?  I don't think its fair to the person in that condition to keep
 JH> them alive by force, no matter how gentle and loving that force might be.

What force are you talking about? You assume everyone in that condition would
want to die.

 EH>>>> My mother had a severe stroke in 1996 and was in the hospital for
 EH>>>> 2 months plugged into a respirator. They weaned her off it and we
 EH>>>> had to put her in a nursing home. Six weeks later, she went into
 EH>>>> the hospital for pneumonia and a bladder infection. She had told
 EH>>>> us that she didn't want heroic measures taken to maintain her
 EH>>>> life and had a living will drawn up stating so. While in the
 EH>>>> hospital for the second time, she had to be put on a resperator
 EH>>>> again. This time, my sisters and I told them to abide by her
 EH>>>> wishes and take her off the machine. She still faught on for
 EH>>>> another 10 hours.

 EH>>>> I know a bit more about such issues than you might think. In
 EH>>>> Terri Shiavo's case, her life does not rely on heroic measures.
 EH>>>> She merely depends on a feeding tube. I read where several
 EH>>>> doctors have stated that with theoropy she could start swollowing
 EH>>>> food. This would move her from needing a feeding tube to eating
 EH>>>> with help.

 EH>>>> At what point did she cease being a human being deserving human
 EH>>>> dignity?

 JH> What is dignified about laying there in a piece of flesh that can't move
 JH> under its own volition?  What's dignified about being reduced to the
 JH> mental state of a 6-month old baby?  What's dignified about having a
 JH> plastic tube stuffed into your stomach through a hole in your throat so
 JH> they can pump nutritious goo and water into you?  I have some real
 JH> problems understanding what some people think is dignified.

So 6 month old babies are not human and deserving of dignity? No matter what
you say, John, you can't rationalize killing another human being.

 JH>>> I never said she didn't deserve it.  What I've said is that it
 JH>>> isn't any of MY business to say what should be done.  Or yours
 JH>>> either, or anybody else who isn't family.

 EH>> And her parents aren't family? Why does her husband want her dead?
 EH>> Why does he not allow her parents to take care of her? He could
 EH>> divorce her and go live with his fiance. But no, he would rather
 EH>> Terri be starved to death.

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

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

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

 JH> I believe somebody already posted the relevant law, or at least
 JH> paraphrased it.

Actually, no, they didn't.

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

 EH>>>> Oh, so since, in your opinion, no one can prove she didn't ask to
 EH>>>> die it's ok for her husband to ask for her to be starved to
 EH>>>> death?

 JH>>> I didn't say that.  This is a hard thing to deal with.  Ideally,
 JH>>> the family should have made a unanimous decision one way or the
 JH>>> other.  They didn't, and got activists involved on both sides of
 JH>>> the issue who won't give an inch no matter what.  Terri has become
 JH>>> a tragic pawn.  Getting the state Supreme Court and the USSC
 JH>>> involved only made matters worse.

 EH>> For crying out loud. So she should be killed to make things all
 EH>> better?

 JH> Didn't say that, did I?

Just up above a ways you talk of keeping someone in that state ruinous of
family finances. So, yes, you did.

 JH>>> There IS no way to resolve it now without creating a shitstorm on
 JH>>> one side or the other.  It has gotten to the point now that I feel
 JH>>> like I have to protect MY right to make such life and death
 JH>>> decisions for MY family without having state and federal judges
 JH>>> involved in second-guessing my decisions or decisions made for me
 JH>>> if *I* am the one in that bed.

 EH>> Give me a break. No human being should have such power over
 EH>> another. If it was a case of heroic measures, I'd err on the side
 EH>> of the husband, but it isn't. All she needs to sustain life is a
 EH>> feeding tube and experts have said she could be given theoropy to
 EH>> get her to swallow again.

 JH> Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.  It happens every day all over the
 JH> world, and you know that as well as I do.

Really? It happens all over the world? Give me some examples. Other than
murder, I cannot find anything.

 EH>>>> So if the court were to say you should be put to death because
 EH>>>> 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
 JH>>>>> kept alive in the sort of condition that Terri Schiavo is, for
 JH>>>>> the very reason that we are seeing all this trauma going on
 JH>>>>> around her, nor can I imagine that she would want it to happen
 JH>>>>> this way either.

 EH>>>> It doesn't matter what you *think* or *feel* about it, ordering
 EH>>>> someone starved to death because they can't feed themself is not
 EH>>>> right. It isn't humane.

 JH> Nor does it matter what *YOU* think or feel about it.  It isn't under
 JH> your jurisdiction to decide.

Oh, so I'm not allowed to argue my case?

 JH>>> And who gets to decide what is humane, Ed?  Do you claim to have
 JH>>> that right over me?  Do I have it over you?  Does some judge who
 JH>>> thinks HE knows best have it over both of us?  The answer to all of
 JH>>> those questions is a resounding NO!  What is humane for me, or my
 JH>>> family in such a situation is what WE AS A FAMILY have decided is
 JH>>> humane for US. I would expect you or anybody else to honor that,
 JH>>> just as I would honor your decisions in the same situation.

 EH>> Humanity isn't situational, John.

 JH> It sure is.  People deal with situations all the time, from
 JH> insignificant stuff, all the way up to stuff like the Schiavo case.
 JH> Nobody does it the same way every time.  According to one report, 38
 JH> states or something like that, have specific laws dealing with how and
 JH> when you can turn off the switch, or pull the tube, etc.  That means
 JH> there are at least 38 variations on a theme, and every time one of these
 JH> situations comes up, it gets handled differently.

You are talking apples and oranges, John. Humanity isn't situational. Period.

 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
 JH>>>>>>> mumbo jumbo and emotional baggage that has attached to this
 JH>>>>>>> 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
 JH>>>>> their reason.

 EH>>>> Good grief! Get off your high horse.

 JH>>> I'm not on any high horse.  I'm trying to make sense of the whole
 JH>>> thing just like you are.  Nobody is thinking clearly at this point.
 JH>>>   Emotions on both sides have taken over and are running pretty
 JH>>> much on autopilot from what I can see.  Neither side will give an
 JH>>> inch, and I'm getting jumped on because I'm trying to figure it out
 JH>>> while avoiding as much of the hytrionics as I can?  Go figure.

 EH>> How can you say no one is thinking clearly at this point? What
 EH>> gives you that power?

 EH>> What hystrionics are you talking about? Is respect for human life
 EH>> "hystrionics?"

 JH> Who is thinking clearly?  The parents?  Michael?  The advocates who have
 JH> lined up on either side behind them?  How about the people getting
 JH> themselves arrested?  How about Congress, or all those judges up and
 JH> down the line?  You're sitting there telling me *I* am trying to assume
 JH> some power I shouldn't have for god's sake!  Apparently I'm some sort of
 JH> evil person because I'm simply trying to stand back far enough to make a
 JH> rational decision without having to wade through all the static.  I
 JH> guess that makes me callous and unfeeling according to some people.

You haven't stood back yet, John. You are on Michael's side. You think Terri
should die. You have repeatedly defended ending her life.

 JH> Respect for human life is a laudable thing, but part of that respect
 JH> also includes the decisions that sometimes have to be made to let
 JH> somebody go.

Only when that person dies on their own, John. Not when someone orders they be
starved to death.

You can't preach to me about letting someone go. I had to do that with both my
father and my mother. Their wishes were that no heroic measures be made to keep
them alive. Their wishes were observed. That isn't the same thing with Terri
Schiavo, thoug. A feeding tube isn't heroic measures. There is a fine line
between respecting the wishes of the person not to use heroic measures and out
right killing them. That line has been crossed with regard to Terri Schiavo. To
deprive her of food and water is worse than if they'd have took a pistol and
shot her between the eyes.

She is going through a long and painful death. If her wishes were that she not
be kept alive by heroic measures (that's what a living will says) then her
wishes are NOT being followed.

Ed

--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
 * Origin:  (1:123/789.0)