Text 10716, 162 rader
Skriven 2005-03-31 05:55:21 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 10690 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
31 Mar 05 00:12, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:

 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" 
 EH>>>>>>> who have kept her from starving to death? So the preservation 
 EH>>>>>>> of a 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 
 JH>>>>>> if any, and doctors ONLY. That NO judge, at any level, has the 
 JH>>>>>> right 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 
 JH>>>>>>>> her and giving that right to her husband.  That carries over 
 JH>>>>>>>> into legal precedent as well. Michael is the legal guardian, 
 JH>>>>>>>> good, bad, or indifferent.

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

 JH>>>>>> And we both know by now that the people arguing on both sides 
 JH>>>>>> of this down there in Florida are hand picked advocates for 
 JH>>>>>> each side.  This is a power struggle just as surely as if it 
 JH>>>>>> were a contested seat in Congress, because the winner will help 
 JH>>>>>> set 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 
 JH>>>> on 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, 
 JH>> and has been publicly corrected by the family.  The point is, he's 
 JH>> just as much an advocate for their side as the other guy is for 
 JH>> Michael.  Two sides of the same coin in my opinion.

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

Lawyers as a general rule are bottom feeders.  For every good one who does
things right, there are a dozen more who don't.  The fact that we have to have
them to navigate the system only makes it worse.

 JH>>>>>> That's why the courts should not be involved.  The situation 
 JH>>>>>> is horrendous enough without complicating it ten fold with 
 JH>>>>>> judicial 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 
 EH>>>>>>> recognition of other as I have seen Terri Shiavo show. She 
 EH>>>>>>> lived for 12 years in a nursing home because none of us could 
 EH>>>>>>> care for her. She died naturally. We didn't starve her to 
 EH>>>>>>> death. We sold the farm my father grew up on and used that 
 EH>>>>>>> money to pay for her care while she was alive. By the time she 
 EH>>>>>>> died there was no money left. We didn't look at her like 
 EH>>>>>>> Michael Shiavo looks at Terri. We considered her a human being 
 EH>>>>>>> and deserving the dignity 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 
 JH>>>>>> anybody 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 
 EH>>>>> was cared for.  It was painful for us, her loved ones to see her
 EH>>>>>  like she was, but that doesn't rationalize having her put to 
 EH>>>>> death by starvation.

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

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

 JH>>>> Again, I have to ask what HER wishes would have been if she had 
 JH>>>> a 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 
 JH>> its not an easy subject, but most people do talk about it with 
 JH>> someone who is close to them.

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

Then you're lucky not having had to deal with such things.  I haven't either,
but my mother has.

 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 
 JH>>>> otherwise trapped in a body that will never function normally 
 JH>>>> again as having any kind of quality of life.  Let me ask you:  If 
 JH>>>> you were in a situation like that, regardless of the reason, 
 JH>>>> where you couldn't move any part of your body, couldn't speak, 
 JH>>>> and dependant on somebody else for everything, would you want to 
 JH>>>> continue living?

 EH>>> I sure wouldn't want someone else to make that decision for me. 
 EH>>> If I had not taken the time and effort to make out a living will, 
 EH>>> it 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 
 JH>> have that authority.  If you're smart, you've left instructions on 
 JH>> who that person is to be.

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

I'm not injecting anything.  You brought up your grandmother, not me.

 EH> This discussion is at an end.

It was OK to tell me I'm playing god, or supporting Michael, even though I
wasn't; but when you get offended, the discussion is over.  Got it.

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: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)