Text 10187, 86 rader
Skriven 2005-03-23 17:47:49 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 10177 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, John.

 EC>>>> The issue is not pulling the plug.  She can live and breath as
 EC>>>> long as she is fed and given water.  If you, Richard Johnson,
 EC>>>> were to do without food and water, you would die too.

 JH>>> I don't pretend to know what mental condition Terri Schiavo is in
 JH>>> at this moment, but one thing I know for sure is the the federal
 JH>>> government has absolutely no business getting involved in this
 JH>>> issue.

 EC>> That has me puzzled.  I can't say with any certainty about her
 EC>> condition either.  All I know is what I've heard reported.  On the
 EC>> other hand, I can't see why the federal government should not get
 EC>> involved with the killing of a US citizen.

 JH> There's more involved here than that.

True, but that point is enough to get the government involved.  If they are 
not to protect the life of the citizen, what reason do they have to exist?

 JH> Almost every judge who has been asked about this case (they've been all
 JH> over the tube since this started), has said that the federal government
 JH> was wrong to get into it at all.

Our judicial system has become tyranical.  Judges think that they are the 
supreme rulers of the country.  Look at Supreme Court Justices justifying 
their vote, not on the US Constitution, but on international standards.  All 
congress did and all that President Bush did was to ask the federal 
judiciary to reexamine things, but these holy judges were above that and 
refused.

 JH> Must jurists seem to come down on the
 JH> side of state's rights and/or doctor/patient privilege.

What doctor/patient privilege?  The patient didn't participate here and the 
doctor that testified before the judge that everyone else is supporting is a 
guy hired by the guy who wants to kill her and one who is a professional 
activist, going around testifying in support of killing people.  He has 
written about his belief in euthenasia.

 JH>>> As more and more information comes out on what has already been
 JH>>> through the cuorts, etc., it seems to me that efforts have already
 JH>>> been made to improve her condition to no avail.  I also have a very

I've heard reports from persons who took care of her for many months, and 
their testimony is uniformly that she is more able than the court will allow 
her to show.

 JH>>> hard time believing that if she is even partially conherent, that
 JH>>> she wants to continue to live trapped in an unresponsive body,
 JH>>> totally dependent on others for everything.  I would not want to
 JH>>> live that way, and I don't know anybody who would.  I have left
 JH>>> instructions so that such a thing can be done to me.  So have both
 JH>>> my parents and my brother.

 EC>> That is fine, but it seems a little far fetched to kill someone on
 EC>> the basis of your preferences.

 JH> There seems to be a lot of he said/she said going on in this area as
 JH> well.  I've heard several reports that the husband expanded a lot of
 JH> effort in the first couple of years to try to bring her out of the
 JH> state she is in, and made no progress.  That's where the "persistent
 JH> vegatative state" stuff comes from.

So why again should she be denied what every condemned killer gets - a 
looksee by the federal court system.  Just today, a federal judge stopped 
the execution of a Fort Worth killer on the basis that he is not smart. 
Would the same judge rule that Terry is smart enough to kill?  And why 
should Terry be denied the same rights as a murder?

 JH> There is also the legal precedent of "giving the bride away" in
 JH> marriage.  In a legal sense, the woman is no longer legally obligated
 JH> to her parents and vice versa, by virtue of becoming a wife.  That
 JH> makes the husband the legal guardian in cases of a tragedy such as
 JH> this.  This morning on WLS somebody asked why didn't somebody just file
 JH> for divorce on behalf of Terri, and a number of people pointed out that
 JH> nobody except her husband has the legal standing to speak for her, and
 JH> that no court would allow such a filing in the first place.

This "husband" has married another and has fathered two children with his 
new wife.  I'm not so sure that he is in a position to represent himself as 
the caring spouse.  His new wife had better watch her back. 

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)