Text 10636, 390 rader
Skriven 2005-03-30 00:36:01 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 10629 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
30 Mar 05 01:18, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:

 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 
 JH>>>> situation that should be between family members, their clergy if 
 JH>>>> any, and doctors ONLY. That NO judge, at any level, has the right 
 JH>>>> to interfere.  If the state doesn't like that, then the 
 JH>>>> legislature should pass laws accordingly, but until they do, 
 JH>>>> everybody else 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.

 EH> 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 
 JH>>>> side.  This is a power struggle just as surely as if it were a 
 JH>>>> contested seat in Congress, because the winner will help set 
 JH>>>> precedents in 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 
 JH>> opinion, judging from some of the things he's said.  The people on 
 JH>> the parent's side are just as bad, in their own way.

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

The parent's lawyer has been making statements that weren't true, and has been
publicly corrected by the family.  The point is, he's just as much an advocate
for their side as the other guy is for Michael.  Two sides of the same coin in
my opinion.

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

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

 EH>>> Unlike you, I do not attempt to play God. It isn't up to me to 
 EH>>> say 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.

What makes you think I'm playing god? Following the wishes of a family member
is not playing god.

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

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

You never had any discussions with her about such things?  I know its not an
easy subject, but most people do talk about it with someone who is close to
them.

 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 
 JH>> having any kind of quality of life.  Let me ask you:  If you were 
 JH>> in a situation like that, regardless of the reason, where you 
 JH>> couldn't move any part of your body, couldn't speak, and dependant 
 JH>> on somebody else for everything, would you want to continue 
 JH>> living?

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

Under the law, regardless of what state you live in, somebody does have that
authority.  If you're smart, you've left instructions on who that person is to
be.

 EH> If I was in such a condition I certainly wouldn't like it if some 
 EH> 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 
 JH>> all too often relatives simply can't make life or death decisions 
 JH>> because they can't get past their own grief and sense of loss.  I 
 JH>> have seen too many

 EH> 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 
 JH>> financial state of the family to the extent of destitution in some 
 JH>> cases, and for

 EH> You consider finances more important than family?

I do not want to be a burden to my family by having to be institutionalized for
decades.  It is incredibly expensive, even with good insurance.  Most people
don't have catastrophic health care insurance.

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

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

 EH>>>>> My mother had a severe stroke in 1996 and was in the hospital 
 EH>>>>> for 2 months plugged into a respirator. They weaned her off it 
 EH>>>>> and we had to put her in a nursing home. Six weeks later, she 
 EH>>>>> went into the hospital for pneumonia and a bladder infection. 
 EH>>>>> She had told us that she didn't want heroic measures taken to 
 EH>>>>> maintain her life and had a living will drawn up stating so. 
 EH>>>>> While in the hospital for the second time, she had to be put on 
 EH>>>>> a resperator again. This time, my sisters and I told them to 
 EH>>>>> abide by her wishes and take her off the machine. She still 
 EH>>>>> faught on for 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 
 EH>>>>> swollowing food. This would move her from needing a feeding tube 
 EH>>>>> to eating 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 
 JH>> can't move under its own volition?  What's dignified about being 
 JH>> reduced to the mental state of a 6-month old baby?  What's 
 JH>> dignified about having a plastic tube stuffed into your stomach 
 JH>> through a hole in your throat so they can pump nutritious goo and 
 JH>> water into you?  I have some real problems understanding what some 
 JH>> people think is dignified.

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

And you are making assumptions again about what I said.  We aren't talking
about babies, we're talking about adults who are brain damaged.  I'm not
rationalizing anything.  I'm talking about things that most people can't even
bring up, let alone have a serious discussion about.

 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 
 EH>>> dead? Why does he not allow her parents to take care of her? He 
 EH>>> could divorce her and go live with his fiance. But no, he would 
 EH>>> rather 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 
 JH>>>>>>>> news. 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.

 EH> 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 
 JH>>>>>> there is no evidence of that or he would have been prosecuted 
 JH>>>>>> for attempted murder.  Her parents have gone to court at least 
 JH>>>>>> a dozen times, and have been found in every case to not have 
 JH>>>>>> enough evidence to warrant removing her from her husband's 
 JH>>>>>> custody.

 EH>>>>> Oh, so since, in your opinion, no one can prove she didn't ask 
 EH>>>>> to 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 
 JH>>>> become a tragic pawn.  Getting the state Supreme Court and the 
 JH>>>> USSC 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?

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

No, I was talking about people who don't make necessary decisions beforehand
and who end up destitute because they can't deal with things.

 JH>>>> There IS no way to resolve it now without creating a shitstorm 
 JH>>>> on one side or the other.  It has gotten to the point now that I 
 JH>>>> feel 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 
 JH>>>> me 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 
 JH>> the world, and you know that as well as I do.

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

Why are you being so damned literal?  Is your position so threatened you can't
even talk about it without going on the offensive?

 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 
 EH>>>>> not right. It isn't humane.

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

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

By all means, but I have the same right, and my opinion is just as valid as
yours.  Since neither of us has an immediate stake in this situation, there is
no point in letting emotions hold sway.  I'm trying to avoid emotionalism as
much as I can because it simply serves no purpose in coming to a conclusion. 
I'm also trying to look at this from the standpoint of what the majority of
people end up having to do in similar situations.  

 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 
 JH>>>> of those questions is a resounding NO!  What is humane for me, or
 JH>>>>  my family in such a situation is what WE AS A FAMILY have 
 JH>>>> decided is humane for US. I would expect you or anybody else to 
 JH>>>> honor that, just as I would honor your decisions in the same 
 JH>>>> 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 
 JH>> case. Nobody does it the same way every time.  According to one 
 JH>> report, 38 states or something like that, have specific laws 
 JH>> dealing with how and when you can turn off the switch, or pull the 
 JH>> tube, etc.  That means there are at least 38 variations on a theme, 
 JH>> and every time one of these situations comes up, it gets handled 
 JH>> differently.

 EH> You are talking apples and oranges, John. Humanity isn't 
 EH> 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 
 JH>>>>>>>> legal mumbo jumbo and emotional baggage that has attached to 
 JH>>>>>>>> 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
 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 
 JH>>>> whole thing just like you are.  Nobody is thinking clearly at 
 JH>>>> this point.  Emotions on both sides have taken over and are 
 JH>>>> running pretty much on autopilot from what I can see.  Neither 
 JH>>>> side will give an inch, and I'm getting jumped on because I'm 
 JH>>>> trying to figure it out while avoiding as much of the hytrionics 
 JH>>>> 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 
 JH>> who have lined up on either side behind them?  How about the people 
 JH>> getting themselves arrested?  How about Congress, or all those 
 JH>> judges up and down the line?  You're sitting there telling me *I* 
 JH>> am trying to assume some power I shouldn't have for god's sake!  
 JH>> Apparently I'm some sort of evil person because I'm simply trying 
 JH>> to stand back far enough to make a rational decision without having 
 JH>> to wade through all the static.  I guess that makes me callous and 
 JH>> unfeeling according to some people.

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

Bullshit.  I made no such judgement about Terri Schiavo.  I said what *I* would
do, and what my parents have said *they* would do.  I distinctly said that it
wasn't my place to make a decision about Terri.  I also said there are too many
people involved in this situation.  I have wondered whether or not she would
want to remain alive trapped in a nonfunctional body.  But I have never once
said I agreed with Michael.

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

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

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

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

And you can't seem to get past the emotional aspects of all this, which is why
you're climbing all over me.

Time to end the discussion.

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)