Text 10906, 135 rader
Skriven 2005-04-02 08:05:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av EARL CROASMUN
Ärende: Re: BO GRITZ
====================
On 04-01-05, EARL CROASMUN said to JOHN HULL:

->  MK> I hope that Judge Greer and all who voted for Michael get voted
->  MK> out in their next election.  Floridians have a long memory.

-> Oh, please, who do you think voted those people in as judges in the first
-> place?  As long as the liberals control Dade and Broward Counties, and the
-> other big city counties, those types of judges will be sitting in Florida,
EC>and
-> serving on the state Supreme Court.


EC>I have no idea what Greer's political ideology or party affiliations
EC>are, but he was reelected in a landslide in 2004.  He beat an opponent
EC>who made the Schiavo rulings the central issue.


The Terri Schiavo case was a `very' tough case to call. Its easy for people
who have no real training in the legal field to sit on the side lines and make
pronouncements about a case like this one.


Its quite another to be sitting in the judges chair, `making' the call one way
or the other.


The Terri Schiavo case is scary. Everyone, regardless of professional training
or lack thereof, should be greatly concerned with the circumstances and
outcome of this case.


I am in my (almost) mid-sixties, and remember back when the Rosenburgs were
executed in the electric chair.


This is the very first time in my lifetime that I can bring to memory, that
the government (when I say "government", I mean state, local, or federal.
Whichever, its all "government") deliberately made pronouncements that set
into motion the procedure that resulted in one of its citizens dying, who had
not first been tried and convicted of a serious crime, for which they were
being executed.


That should make `everyone' a little nervious. If you think about it, the
pressure and outcry of one side calling for her to `be allowed to die'; and
the pressure and outcry of the other side calling for her to be saved; is
reminiscent of the glory days of the Roman Amphitheatre, when a loud shouting
and `thumbs up' meant the person lived to fight another day; or a loud booing
and `thumbs down' meant the person died.


Our society seems to be going down hill faster and faster all the time.


Lets look at this case a bit:


We have a young woman who had oxygen to her brain severely lowered or cut off
altogether in some sort of (to me) unclear circumstance. The material I've
heard and seen to date, indicates her husband, Michael Schiavo was in the room
at the time this happened.


In any event, the windup was that her brain became permanently damaged by
this, and over time a large important part of it atrophied and\or disappeared.


Until she reached the stage she was at when this case came to the national
attention.


I have a real problem with a government (on any level) becoming involved in
this case, except with the proper branch of government (the courts)
administering the law (as it applies) to see that Terri Schiavo's rights are
respected.


On the one hand, we have a man who *says* his wife expressed the wish not to
live in circumstances which she does not have a certain level of quality to
her life. AND, there are at least two witnesses to her expressing such.


Both `witnesses' however, are Michael Schiavo's own brother, and his
sister-in-law, his brothers' wife.


But, on the other hand, we have no written expression *from* Terri Schiavo,
expressing her desire to be kept `alive'; NOR is there any written expression
*from* Terri Schiavo that she be allowed to die.


To me, an untrained legal mind. this is a tough call from `the bench', and
only brings home to me how really difficult the job of being a judge can be
sometimes.


But, the reason it should trouble all of us is that, with this case coming out
the way it did, and with the involvement of `government' here, I have to
wonder how many people see that America has passed another milestone.


I see this as an arm of the `government' making the decision that Terri
Schiavo die. Albeit, that decision was made on many things, the `quality' of
her life, and its ultimate outcome, were large contributing factors in making
that decision, it was made by an arm of the `government'.


And thats scary, because it wasn't a hundred years ago yet, that an arm of a
`government' was making the decision of who's life would be preserved, and
who's would not. And it wasn't based on the fact that they were `Jews' (not at
first, `that' part would wait till the war began), it was made on the fact
that they were retarded, or had Downs Syndrome, or were wheelchair bound with
one of the crippling conditions, etc.


How long will it be now, before someone will decide that there will be more
money for the Social Security Fund, if a lot of the people who are supported
by SSI were no longer around to be a drain on the system?


I'm talking about retarded people who are now covered by SSI.


How long will it be before the decision which should be made within the
family, within a structure of the law, be taken under the wing of one of the
branches of `government'?


This case has opened a door a tiny crack. A door that shouldn't even exist in
America.


---
*Durango b301 #PE* Hac lege - with this law
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)