+- CDIH (https://www.cdih.net/cdih)
+-- Forum: General Discussion and Entertainment (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: The Pit (https://www.cdih.net/cdih/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: Stop Feeding the Bitch - Feed Yourself or Die (/showthread.php?tid=10193)
- OAS - 03-21-2005
Is anyone scratching their head today wondering why the US Senate and Congress are ruling on the fate of a vegetable? Is anyone else troubled that the President of the US wasted taxpayer’s money flying to Washington from vacation just to sign a bill trying to keep a vegetable alive?
Where does it say in the Bible that if a person can't feed themselves and they are laying there like a dead fish that we are required to act on their behalf and keep them alive?
We have serious problems with education, taxes, a war, social security, a federal deficit and other issues. Congress can't act on any of those issues but by God, we can ram a law through to save a dead woman.
This religious right shit is getting out of hand. I even heard a story this morning that most malls around the country no longer refer to the Easter Bunny as the EASTER Bunny. They call him things like the Spring Bunny, or Hippity Hoppy the Bunny and other shit. Stop this crap!
- Tequila - 03-21-2005
The catholic religion is the biggest crock of shit. I am Catholic and it sucks. Any religion is legalized extortion. How is that a single person who is not even on earth has so many people scared of him. If he could have done anything to me it would have been done already. I say Fuck em' if he cant take a joke. How is it that a priest takes a vow of Poverty & Celibacy, but yet drives a fucking Lexus & molests little boys.
- Silera - 03-21-2005
I like how the right has no problem trampling over state's rights to keep this woman alive but does have a problem with it as applied to Roe v. Wade.
- Gooch - 03-21-2005
if she committed a crime, it would then be ok to kill the cunt. welcome to the contradiction of the Right wing.
- Buttmunch - 03-21-2005
If the government and the true-believer groups want to keep her alive, they should seek to legally sever the husband's guardianship over her.
Once that's done, someone can put up the money to fund a trust to care for her for the rest of her "natural" life.
Personally, I find the idea of letting her starve to death distasteful.
If they are going to euthanize her, then off her mercifullyl.
- Silera - 03-21-2005
If they were true believers, they should get her off all the machines and then pray really hard to keep her alive.
- Buttmunch - 03-21-2005
Don't you dare disagree with me, bitch!
- Tequila - 03-21-2005
Buttmunch Wrote:If the government and the true-believer groups want to keep her alive, they should seek to legally sever the husband's guardianship over her.That is the most thought out post you ever made.
Once that's done, someone can put up the money to fund a trust to care for her for the rest of her "natural" life.
Personally, I find the idea of letting her starve to death distasteful.
If they are going to euthanize her, then off her mercifullyl.
I like the idea of guardianship being severed from her husband.
- Silera - 03-21-2005
Quote:Don't you dare disagree with me, bitch!
I don't. I don't think that she can suffer though, because her brain doesnt function.
But, in general, people in that state should be put down mercifully.
Your solution would mean that people "fighting" for her life actual care about her life. In fact, it's just another way to get the Supreme Court to have to look at Roe v. Wade.
Edited By Silera on 1111423931
- Buttmunch - 03-21-2005
You are still disagreeing with me!
- Tequila - 03-21-2005
The people that are fighting for her to be kept alive are not those that care about her but care about the religious reasons and are trying to get to heaven. Think about if you were in this position. You are a fucking vegetable, you will never be anything else, would you want to be kept alive? Fuck no! I personally have a living will with a D.N.R. With one of these I dont care what group wants to keep me alive they can't so they could go fuck themselves.
- Silera - 03-21-2005
I am agreeing with you but I think the Florida courts probably addressed the guardianship issue over the past 10 years of litigation.
EDIT: TEQUILA KEEPS BUTTING IN!!!
Edited By Silera on 1111424063
- Keyser Soze - 03-21-2005
shes not in a coma, shes responsive, she is in a facility that merely keeps her comfortable but doesnt rehabilitate her.
the problem is her husband makes the call and he doesnt want to try and have her do physical therapy that would give her a chance to have a somewhat normal life. i dont care about the politics involved. fuck the reps, the dems, the libs, the conservatives.
- Silera - 03-21-2005
She's never going to be rehabilitated.
- Jack - 03-21-2005
I think they just need to let the poor woman die. She has been diagnosed as being in a persistent vegetative state by at least 2 experts. There is no chance of getting better. If the husband did not care for her, he would have simply signed over guardianship/divorced her. Yet he has fought these court battles for what he believes is his wifes final wishes.
- Tequila - 03-21-2005
Silera Wrote:EDIT: TEQUILA KEEPS BUTTING IN!!!I thought you liked when I butt in?
Edited By Tequila on 1111424528
- Black Lazerus - 03-21-2005
I went through this same issue with my girlfriends mom and i personally think that if she can be well taken care of in a nursing home or some other care facility, her life should not be terminated. Incapacitated people don't live long they have chronic urinary tract infections, colds, and bedsores. But with all that said if the guy has the legal right to remove the feeding tube he should be able to do so, they allow it with cancer patients so i don't think this should be any different.
- Silera - 03-21-2005
Compilation of the facts & Timeline
Quote:Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should live or die?
Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
Why didn’t the court appoint a guardian other than Terri’s husband to speak for her?
The trial judge could have utilized a guardian ad litem as a neutral party to speak for Terri, but in the end the trial judge did not do so. The Second District affirmed this decision and explained its rationale in this way:
Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian. Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.
Edited By Silera on 1111425347
- Galt - 03-21-2005
yeah, she's not a vegetable that I've seen. She's just completely retarded.
There is the same slippery slope argument (though an actual valid one in this case) that people use for not wanting gay marriage. If we let her die, then what about....
Suicide is illegal. People don't have the right to end their own lives. So start from there.
Jack Kervorkian is in jail for letting terminally ill people kill themselves a few months early and spare themselves the pain.
If this lady can not be fed, then what about other retarded folk, or quadrapalgics. Husbands and wives can just say "stop feeding them".
There are legally allowed DNR requests, but intentionally killing someone? That's not cool. And the way they are doing it, is the least humane way imaginable. Hell even Hitler through people in gas chambers to kill them rather than having them starve to death.
Now, the other thing, someone please explain to me how exactly the Religous Right is "getting out of control" when the religous aspect of Easter is dropped? When the holiday, much like Xmas, started as the holiest of holy days to celebrate their Supreme Lord and Master becomes bastardized and celebrated for something competely different, and completely removes all mention of what the thing was started for initially?
- Silera - 03-21-2005
This case doesn't boil down to a guy after two weeks thinking, hey I don't want to deal with this bitch. 8 years after the coma, with no recovery in site, or any hope for it, he started the process of EVALUATING options for her. The courts have made the decision all along.