Text 10690, 143 rader
Skriven 2005-03-31 00:12:43 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 10636 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH> 30 Mar 05 01:18, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:

 JH>  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.

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

So, since the other lawyer said some things that weren't true, he is as bad as
Michael Schiavo's lawyer? Michael's lawyer has said some pretty terrible things
about Terri.

 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.

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

How do you know it was Terri's wishes? Because someone said it was? That's
hearsay. That is inadmissible in criminal court. Why should it be admissible in
Terri's case?

 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.

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

No, we never had that discussion with her and it wasn't because it was a
painful subject. Back in the 1970s that type of discussion wasn't a normal
course of family conversations. Besides, there was never a time that heroic
measures had to have been taken to prolong her life. Being fed by someone isn't
heroic measures. The family rightly thought and still thinks that starvation
and dehydration is not an acceptable form of "allowing" someone to die. If we
had it to do over again we'd do the same thing.

 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.

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

Look, John, what I have or have not done is none of your business and your
attempt here to inject my personal life into this discussion is duely noted.

This discussion is at an end.

Ed

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