Text 10518, 236 rader
Skriven 2005-03-29 00:44:22 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Kommentar till text 10351 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
JH> 27 Mar 05 05:12, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:
JH> John Hull ->> Ed Hulett wrote:
JH>>>>> What this case really boils down to, is that Terri would have
JH>>>>> been dead long ago if her parents had not interfered.
EH>>>> Good grief! That is one of the most idiotic statements I have
EH>>>> ever heard of!
JH>>> Why? Michael has been trying to remove the feeding tube for
JH>>> several years. The courts have ruled repeatedly that the parents
JH>>> have no legal standing. Its only because of activist judges that
JH>>> it took this long to remove the tube.
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 situation that
JH> should be between family members, their clergy if any, and doctors ONLY.
JH> That NO judge, at any level, has the right to interfere. If the state
JH> doesn't like that, then the legislature should pass laws accordingly,
JH> but until they do, everybody else should stay the hell out of it.
So, the judge who ordered her tube removed until she is dead should have stayed
out of it too?
JH>>>>> Michael, as the husband,
JH>>>>> has the legal right to pull the tube under Florida law. She has
JH>>>>> shown no more than the dimmest recognition in all the time this
JH>>>>> has been going on according to one doctor interviewed on WLS
JH>>>>> radio. As for divorcing her, how does one do that? Michael is
JH>>>>> her legal guardian and can't represent her and himself both. He
JH>>>>> is stuck by the system as much as she is.
EH>>>> Huh? He wouldn't represent her in a divorce! What lunacy! Did you
EH>>>> even think before typing that nonsense in?
JH>>> Several divorce attorneys commented on the case during call-ins on
JH>>> WLS yesterday. They all said that since there is no definitive
JH>>> evidence showing what her actual wishes are, they would not take
JH>>> the case, since they would be subject to ethical questions they had
JH>>> no way to answer.
EH>> Good grief! So they wouldn't take the case for divorce since her
EH>> wishes haven't been written down, but it's ok to starve her to
EH>> death without her wishes about that known? You can't really be
EH>> serious!
JH>>>>>>> Bottom line, though, is that legally he is the only one who
JH>>>>>>> can decide what happens, and the courts are supporting that at
JH>>>>>>> both the state and federal levels. Even if the USSC takes the
JH>>>>>>> case, according to what I heard on the news this morning, it
JH>>>>>>> will likely support the federal circuit court that refused to
JH>>>>>>> issue an injunction yesterday.
EH>>>>>> Actually, there was no living will. He shouldn't have the right
EH>>>>>> to decide to starve his wife to death. It isn't like she
EH>>>>>> requires machines to keep her breathing. All she requires is a
EH>>>>>> feeding tube. To remove that tube and make her go through a long
EH>>>>>> and painful death is inhumane. If someone was found to have
EH>>>>>> starved an animal to death, they'd be put behind bars. Why is it
EH>>>>>> ok, then, for Michael Shiavo to starve his wife to death?
JH>>> Then who does have the right, Ed? When she got married, her
JH>>> father gave her away, symbolically releasing his right to her and
JH>>> giving that right to her husband. That carries over into legal
JH>>> precedent as well. Michael is the legal guardian, good, bad, or
JH>>> 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 her
EH>> starved to death is a completely different thing!
JH> And we both know by now that the people arguing on both sides of this
JH> down there in Florida are hand picked advocates for each side. This is
JH> a power struggle just as surely as if it were a contested seat in
JH> Congress, because the winner will help set precedents in future cases
JH> that come up.
Good giref. We know no such thing.
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!
What activism are you talking about?
EH>> My grandmother had several strokes putting her into a state where
EH>> she had to be fed by hand and she had as much recognition of other
EH>> as I have seen Terri Shiavo show. She lived for 12 years in a
EH>> nursing home because none of us could care for her. She died
EH>> naturally. We didn't starve her to death. We sold the farm my
EH>> father grew up on and used that money to pay for her care while
EH>> she was alive. By the time she died there was no money left. We
EH>> didn't look at her like Michael Shiavo looks at Terri. We
EH>> considered her a human being and deserving the dignity of life.
JH> I have to ask what she would have told you after several years of being
JH> trapped in a body that was useless? Nobody wants to die, but it isn't
JH> unreasonable for someone under such circumstances to want to do so. I
JH> don't know about you, but I couldn't stand it, and I have a real hard
JH> time believing anybody else would choose that state over ending it.
Unlike you, I do not attempt to play God. It isn't up to me to say either way.
My grandmother did not suffer. Her every need was cared for. It was painful
for us, her loved ones to see her like she was, but that doesn't rationalize
having her put to death by starvation.
EH>> My mother had a severe stroke in 1996 and was in the hospital for
EH>> 2 months plugged into a respirator. They weaned her off it and we
EH>> had to put her in a nursing home. Six weeks later, she went into
EH>> the hospital for pneumonia and a bladder infection. She had told
EH>> us that she didn't want heroic measures taken to maintain her life
EH>> and had a living will drawn up stating so. While in the hospital
EH>> for the second time, she had to be put on a resperator again. This
EH>> time, my sisters and I told them to abide by her wishes and take
EH>> her off the machine. She still faught on for another 10 hours.
EH>> I know a bit more about such issues than you might think. In Terri
EH>> Shiavo's case, her life does not rely on heroic measures. She
EH>> merely depends on a feeding tube. I read where several doctors
EH>> have stated that with theoropy she could start swollowing food.
EH>> This would move her from needing a feeding tube to eating with
EH>> help.
EH>> At what point did she cease being a human being deserving human
EH>> dignity?
JH> I never said she didn't deserve it. What I've said is that it isn't any
JH> of MY business to say what should be done. Or yours either, or anybody
JH> else who isn't family.
And her parents aren't family? Why does her husband want her dead? Why does he
not allow her parents to take care of her? He could divorce her and go live
with his fiance. But no, he would 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 they
JH>>>>> are not likely to do so from what I've heard on the news. Every
JH>>>>> state has its own set of laws.
EH>>>> Actually, no one has shown what Florida state law gives a spouse
EH>>>> the right to order the death of their mate.
EH>>>> If you know of such a law, please cite it.
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 alive
JH>>> in this sort of state. Nor is there evidence beyond his word that
JH>>> she did. Some have said he tried to kill her, but there is no
JH>>> evidence of that or he would have been prosecuted for attempted
JH>>> murder. Her parents have gone to court at least a dozen times, and
JH>>> have been found in every case to not have enough evidence to
JH>>> warrant removing her from her husband's custody.
EH>> Oh, so since, in your opinion, no one can prove she didn't ask to
EH>> die it's ok for her husband to ask for her to be starved to death?
JH> I didn't say that. This is a hard thing to deal with. Ideally, the
JH> family should have made a unanimous decision one way or the other. They
JH> didn't, and got activists involved on both sides of the issue who won't
JH> give an inch no matter what. Terri has become a tragic pawn. Getting
JH> the state Supreme Court and the USSC involved only made matters worse.
For crying out loud. So she should be killed to make things all better?
JH> There IS no way to resolve it now without creating a shitstorm on one
JH> side or the other. It has gotten to the point now that I feel like I
JH> have to protect MY right to make such life and death decisions for MY
JH> family without having state and federal judges involved in
JH> second-guessing my decisions or decisions made for me if *I* am the one
JH> in that bed.
Give me a break. No human being should have such power over another. If it was
a case of heroic measures, I'd err on the side of the husband, but it isn't.
All she needs to sustain life is a feeding tube and experts have said she could
be given theoropy to get her to swallow again.
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 the
JH>>> very reason that we are seeing all this trauma going on around her,
JH>>> nor can I imagine that she would want it to happen this way
JH>>> 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 not
EH>> right. It isn't humane.
JH> And who gets to decide what is humane, Ed? Do you claim to have that
JH> right over me? Do I have it over you? Does some judge who thinks HE
JH> knows best have it over both of us? The answer to all of those
JH> questions is a resounding NO! What is humane for me, or my family in
JH> such a situation is what WE AS A FAMILY have decided is humane for US.
JH> I would expect you or anybody else to honor that, just as I would honor
JH> your decisions in the same situation.
Humanity isn't situational, John.
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 legal
JH>>>>> mumbo jumbo and emotional baggage that has attached to this
JH>>>>> 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 whole thing
JH> just like you are. Nobody is thinking clearly at this point. Emotions
JH> on both sides have taken over and are running pretty much on autopilot
JH> from what I can see. Neither side will give an inch, and I'm getting
JH> jumped on because I'm trying to figure it out while avoiding as much of
JH> the hytrionics as I can? Go figure.
How can you say no one is thinking clearly at this point? What gives you that
power?
What hystrionics are you talking about? Is respect for human life
"hystrionics?"
Ed
--- Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)
* Origin: (1:123/789.0)
|