Text 10553, 313 rader
Skriven 2005-03-29 07:00:52 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 10518 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Bo Gritz
================
29 Mar 05 00:44, Ed Hulett wrote to John Hull:

 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 
 JH>>>> parents have no legal standing.  Its only because of activist 
 JH>>>> judges that 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 
 JH>> that should be between family members, their clergy if any, and 
 JH>> doctors ONLY. That NO judge, at any level, has the right to 
 JH>> interfere.  If the state doesn't like that, then the legislature 
 JH>> should pass laws accordingly, but until they do, everybody else 
 JH>> 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?

Yes.

 JH>>>>>> Michael, as the husband,
 JH>>>>>> has the legal right to pull the tube under Florida law.  She 
 JH>>>>>> has shown no more than the dimmest recognition in all the time 
 JH>>>>>> this has been going on according to one doctor interviewed on 
 JH>>>>>> WLS radio.  As for divorcing her, how does one do that?  
 JH>>>>>> Michael is her legal guardian and can't represent her and 
 JH>>>>>> himself both.  He is stuck by the system as much as she is.

 EH>>>>> Huh? He wouldn't represent her in a divorce! What lunacy! Did 
 EH>>>>> you even think before typing that nonsense in?

 JH>>>> Several divorce attorneys commented on the case during call-ins 
 JH>>>> on WLS yesterday.  They all said that since there is no 
 JH>>>> definitive evidence showing what her actual wishes are, they 
 JH>>>> would not take the case, since they would be subject to ethical 
 JH>>>> questions they had 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 
 JH>>>>>>>> at both the state and federal levels.  Even if the USSC takes
 JH>>>>>>>>  the case, according to what I heard on the news this 
 JH>>>>>>>> morning, it will likely support the federal circuit court 
 JH>>>>>>>> that refused to issue an injunction yesterday.

 EH>>>>>>> Actually, there was no living will. He shouldn't have the 
 EH>>>>>>> right to decide to starve his wife to death. It isn't like 
 EH>>>>>>> she requires machines to keep her breathing. All she requires 
 EH>>>>>>> is a feeding tube. To remove that tube and make her go through 
 EH>>>>>>> a long and painful death is inhumane. If someone was found to 
 EH>>>>>>> have starved an animal to death, they'd be put behind bars. 
 EH>>>>>>> Why is it ok, then, for Michael Shiavo to starve his wife to 
 EH>>>>>>> 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 
 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 side.
 JH>>   This is a power struggle just as surely as if it were a contested 
 JH>> seat in Congress, because the winner will help set precedents in 
 JH>> future cases that come up.

 EH> Good giref. We know no such thing.

Then you have not seen some of the news reports that I have, and probably vice
versa.  Michael's legal beagle is a ghoul, in my opinion, judging from some of
the things he's said.  The people on the parent's side are just as bad, in
their own way.

 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 where
 EH>>> she had to be fed by hand and she had as much recognition of 
 EH>>> other as I have seen Terri Shiavo show. She lived for 12 years in 
 EH>>> a 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 
 JH>> being trapped in a body that was useless?  Nobody wants to die, but 
 JH>> it isn't unreasonable for someone under such circumstances to want 
 JH>> to do so.  I don't know about you, but I couldn't stand it, and I 
 JH>> have a real hard time believing anybody else would choose that 
 JH>> state over ending it.

 EH> Unlike you, I do not attempt to play God. It isn't up to me to say 
 EH> 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.

Again, I have to ask what HER wishes would have been if she had a choice.  I
don't consider keeping someone alive by artificial means, even if there is
supposedly no pain, who is in a coma or otherwise trapped in a body that will
never function normally again as having any kind of quality of life.  Let me
ask you:  If you were in a situation like that, regardless of the reason, where
you couldn't move any part of your body, couldn't speak, and dependant on
somebody else for everything, would you want to continue living?

Hoping against all reason for a miracle in such a situation is understandable
but it certainly isn't realistic or rational, yet all too often relatives
simply can't make life or death decisions because they can't get past their own
grief and sense of loss.  I have seen too many friends who have gone through
this, and not a few of my own family members, where they are unable to let
someone go, ruining the financial state of the family to the extent of
destitution in some cases, and for what?  I don't think its fair to the person
in that condition to keep them alive by force, no matter how gentle and loving
that force might be.

 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 
 EH>>> life and had a living will drawn up stating so. While in the 
 EH>>> hospital for the second time, she had to be put on a resperator 
 EH>>> again. This time, my sisters and I told them to abide by her 
 EH>>> wishes and take her off the machine. She still faught on for 
 EH>>> another 10 hours.

 EH>>> I know a bit more about such issues than you might think. In 
 EH>>> Terri Shiavo's case, her life does not rely on heroic measures. 
 EH>>> She merely depends on a feeding tube. I read where several 
 EH>>> doctors have stated that with theoropy she could start swollowing 
 EH>>> food. This would move her from needing a feeding tube to eating 
 EH>>> with help.

 EH>>> At what point did she cease being a human being deserving human
 EH>>> dignity?

What is dignified about laying there in a piece of flesh that can't move under
its own volition?  What's dignified about being reduced to the mental state of
a 6-month old baby?  What's dignified about having a plastic tube stuffed into
your stomach through a hole in your throat so they can pump nutritious goo and
water into you?  I have some real problems understanding what some people think
is dignified.

 JH>> I never said she didn't deserve it.  What I've said is that it 
 JH>> isn't any of MY business to say what should be done.  Or yours 
 JH>> either, or anybody else who isn't family.

 EH> And her parents aren't family? Why does her husband want her dead? 
 EH> Why does he not allow her parents to take care of her? He could 
 EH> divorce her and go live with his fiance. But no, he would rather 
 EH> 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 
 JH>>>>>> they are not likely to do so from what I've heard on the news. 
 JH>>>>>>  Every state has its own set of laws.

 EH>>>>> Actually, no one has shown what Florida state law gives a 
 EH>>>>> spouse the right to order the death of their mate.

 EH>>>>> If you know of such a law, please cite it.

I believe somebody already posted the relevant law, or at least paraphrased 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 
 JH>>>> alive in this sort of state.  Nor is there evidence beyond his 
 JH>>>> word that she did. Some have said he tried to kill her, but there 
 JH>>>> is no evidence of that or he would have been prosecuted for 
 JH>>>> attempted murder.  Her parents have gone to court at least a 
 JH>>>> dozen times, and have been found in every case to not have enough 
 JH>>>> evidence to 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 
 EH>>> death?

 JH>> I didn't say that.  This is a hard thing to deal with.  Ideally, 
 JH>> the family should have made a unanimous decision one way or the 
 JH>> other.  They didn't, and got activists involved on both sides of 
 JH>> the issue who won't give an inch no matter what.  Terri has become 
 JH>> a tragic pawn.  Getting the state Supreme Court and the USSC 
 JH>> involved only made matters worse.

 EH> For crying out loud. So she should be killed to make things all 
 EH> better?

Didn't say that, did I?

 JH>> There IS no way to resolve it now without creating a shitstorm on 
 JH>> one side or the other.  It has gotten to the point now that I feel 
 JH>> like I have to protect MY right to make such life and death 
 JH>> decisions for MY family without having state and federal judges 
 JH>> involved in second-guessing my decisions or decisions made for me 
 JH>> if *I* am the one in that bed.

 EH> Give me a break. No human being should have such power over 
 EH> another. If it was a case of heroic measures, I'd err on the side 
 EH> of the husband, but it isn't. All she needs to sustain life is a 
 EH> feeding tube and experts have said she could be given theoropy to 
 EH> get her to swallow again.

Maybe they shouldn't, but they do.  It happens every day all over the world,
and you know that as well as I do.

 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 
 JH>>>> the very reason that we are seeing all this trauma going on 
 JH>>>> around her, nor can I imagine that she would want it to happen 
 JH>>>> this way 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.

Nor does it matter what *YOU* think or feel about it.  It isn't under your
jurisdiction to decide.

 JH>> And who gets to decide what is humane, Ed?  Do you claim to have 
 JH>> that right over me?  Do I have it over you?  Does some judge who 
 JH>> thinks HE knows best have it over both of us?  The answer to all of 
 JH>> those questions is a resounding NO!  What is humane for me, or my 
 JH>> family in such a situation is what WE AS A FAMILY have decided is 
 JH>> humane for US. I would expect you or anybody else to honor that, 
 JH>> just as I would honor your decisions in the same situation.

 EH> Humanity isn't situational, John.

It sure is.  People deal with situations all the time, from insignificant
stuff, all the way up to stuff like the Schiavo case.  Nobody does it the same
way every time.  According to one report, 38 states or something like that,
have specific laws dealing with how and when you can turn off the switch, or
pull the tube, etc.  That means there are at least 38 variations on a theme,
and every time one of these situations comes up, it gets handled differently.

 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 
 JH>> thing just like you are.  Nobody is thinking clearly at this point.
 JH>>   Emotions on both sides have taken over and are running pretty 
 JH>> much on autopilot from what I can see.  Neither side will give an 
 JH>> inch, and I'm getting jumped on because I'm trying to figure it out 
 JH>> while avoiding as much of the hytrionics as I can?  Go figure.

 EH> How can you say no one is thinking clearly at this point? What 
 EH> gives you that power?

 EH> What hystrionics are you talking about? Is respect for human life 
 EH> "hystrionics?"

Who is thinking clearly?  The parents?  Michael?  The advocates who have lined
up on either side behind them?  How about the people getting themselves
arrested?  How about Congress, or all those judges up and down the line? 
You're sitting there telling me *I* am trying to assume some power I shouldn't
have for god's sake!  Apparently I'm some sort of evil person because I'm
simply trying to stand back far enough to make a rational decision without
having to wade through all the static.  I guess that makes me callous and
unfeeling according to some people.

Respect for human life is a laudable thing, but part of that respect also
includes the decisions that sometimes have to be made to let somebody go.

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)