Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause
wrote:


It was her wish to die.


Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating
that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any
point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and
you would have the same situation you have now.


It also is a matter of spousal perogative.


Sort of actually, but I won't argue the merits of that because it's
much to complicated for the sake of this argument..

More important though is that Ms. Schiavo has not, nor is, having her
interests protected by her own separate attorney. It would seem to me
that having her own attorney in this situation would speed things up
considerably.

I believe that at some point she had a court appointed attorney

Also, note that Ms. Schiavo's husband initiated all this long after
her initial treatment with a feeding tube. There is a rather large
settlement, he suddenly remembers about her wanting to die. It would
seem to me that if she had said to him about her desire to pass over,
he wouldn't have done the feeding tube bit to begin with.

She was sent to California for treatment, upon return several other
treatments were attempted. The husband gave up roughly 1 year after it
became apparent nothing else going to help. I SUSPECT that during that
year much agonized discussion between the husband and parents.

See
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
for a good unbiased summary of the case


I still am uncomfortable about the fact that she does not have her own
representation.

I believe that at some point she had a court appointed attorney



The right wing is, as usual, pandering to rile up its simple-minded masses.


No, Harry, they aren't. They are reacting to their constituencies
much like their Democrat brethren - like me in fact. I am represented
by Democrats and I made my thought known to them on this subject. Are
you going to call me simple?

I don't know if any of you have ever experienced something called
sleep paralysis, but it's a condition in which the mind wakes up, but
the body is still asleep. It's both fascinating, awesome and very
scary at the same time. You have no mouth and you must scream - if
only to wake yourself up.

I would hate to think that there is a mind in there trying to scream.

For me, I would error on the side of hope and life.

That's what bush SAID, but read the following

BUSH SIGNED LAW ALLOWING HOSPITALS TO DISCONTINUE LIFE SUPPORT: In a
statement released early this morning, President Bush said he will
"continue to stand on the side of those defending life for all
Americans
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea.../20050321.html) ." But
the facts make it hard to believe that Bush is standing on principle. In
1999, then Gov. Bush signed a law that " allows hospitals [to]
discontinue life sustaining care
(http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...olitan/3084934) , even
if patient family members disagree." Just days ago the law permitted
Texas Children's Hospital to remove the breathing tube from a
6-month-old boy named Sun Hudson. The law may soon be used to remove
life support (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7201470/) from Spiro
Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old man. Bush has not commented on either case.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause
wrote:

It was her wish to die.

Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating
that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any
point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and
you would have the same situation you have now.

The flip side is that if she could speak, she could insist that she be given
NO care whatsoever after a certain point. No food, no medicine, no water, no
nothing. By law, nobody can override that request from the patient. Period.
It should have at least been in writing, and she should've had a long
discussion with her doctor, the lawyer who handled her will, and one or two
trusted "others".

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:44:08 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .


Of course, one may ask, "What is 'due process of law'?"

One may also ask how long we will put up with people interfering in family
decisions. If you had communicated to your wife what that woman told her
husband, but you had not put it in writing yet, and you were in her
condition, your wife would be going through this exact same bull****. And
that's EXACTLY what it is.


"...nor shall any state deprive any person of life..."

*You* don't know what she said, if anything, to her husband. Apparently 19
Florida judges couldn't figure it out for sure, unless the last one is
always
right.

Almost half the Democrats who voted in the House voted *for* the measure.
Why
are there no complaints against them?

The party affiliation of those who voted for it is irrelevant. It is an
intrusion.

When Jimcomma started this, he stated, "Now President George W.
Bush, Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) are using the
tragic case of Schiavo..."

I assumed you agreed with his position.

My question to you would be, "Why should Scott Peterson get a Supreme Court
hearing, and Schiavo not? Apparently some judges felt their was enough doubt
about the husbands motives and her desires to rule for leaving the feeding tube
in place.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause wrote:

John H wrote:

BTW, the federal judge in Florida has turned down the request to
reinsert the brain-dead woman's feeding tube. Finally, a federal
official with a backbone.

Now, I suppose, the right-wing panderers will want the case certed to
the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta...

Stay tuned.


I'll try to respond to you without the offensive invective you find so
necessary.

Scott Peterson case will go as high as the Supreme Court, if not overturned
sooner. Why should Sciavo's not go as high?

She is entitled to due process, at least as much as Peterson.


Death row cases routinely are "reviewed" by a partial panel of the
Supreme Court and just as routinely returned without action. Once in a
great while the Supremes take on a death penalty case. Not often.

Mrs. Schiavo got her due process. Further, there are witnesses who heard
her say at two famioy funerals that she never wanted extreme measures
taken to keep her around if she lapsed into a non-reversible coma or if
she were dying of some dread disease.

It was her wish to die.

It also is a matter of spousal perogative.

The right wing is, as usual, pandering to rile up its simple-minded masses.

Unless you have all the testimony given to all the judges in this case, you have
no basis for your statements. Whether or not she wished to die seems to be the
crux of the matter. How do *you* know what she wished?

From whence comes, "It is also a matter of spousal perogative." Have you
researched the Florida laws to make that determination? If so, show us.

Do you forget all Democrats who either went along with or voted *for* the
measure (almost half of those who voted in the House)?

In the Senate, *one* Democrat could have put the measure on hold. Not *one*
Democrat desired to do so.

Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what cause the
comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe that people
are 'obsessed' with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 17:51:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:01:20 -0500, HKrause
wrote:

It was her wish to die.

Not legally. There is no final legally binding document indicating
that was her wish. In fact, even if there was, she could have, at any
point, said to somebody that she wished for extraordinary measures and
you would have the same situation you have now.

The flip side is that if she could speak, she could insist that she be given
NO care whatsoever after a certain point. No food, no medicine, no water, no
nothing. By law, nobody can override that request from the patient. Period.
It should have at least been in writing, and she should've had a long
discussion with her doctor, the lawyer who handled her will, and one or two
trusted "others".


You'e right. She *could have*...

As she didn't, the courts must make a determination. She is getting her shot at
due process.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:16:53 -0500, HKrause wrote:


Yawn.

Exactly.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:47:07 GMT, WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:22 -0500, John H
wrote:

Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what cause the
comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe that people
are 'obsessed' with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Actually John, if you killfiled crouse, the newsgroup would be one step
close to a boating group.

Just a suggestion.

There is a reason you reply to him, ask yourself what that reason is.

Up until this point the discussion was not at all contentious.

But, you're right. Back in he goes.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:47:07 GMT, WaIIy
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:22 -0500, John H
wrote:

Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what
cause the
comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe
that people
are 'obsessed' with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Actually John, if you killfiled crouse, the newsgroup would be one
step
close to a boating group.

Just a suggestion.

There is a reason you reply to him, ask yourself what that reason
is.

Up until this point the discussion was not at all contentious.

But, you're right. Back in he goes.

--
John H

Me too, please.

but also of the death sentence of just handed down to
Terri Shiavo.

***********

According to all medical evidence, the light's on, but nobody's home.
The body can function if kept alive by artificial means, but the human
being died 15 years ago.

You often express opinions consistent with fundamental Christianity, is
there no comfort in your thought that she's on a cloud, playing a harp,
and watching all of this play out over her empty shell with just a bit
of a sad, wry smile?

On 23 Mar 2005 08:27:08 -0800, "basskisser" wrote:


John H wrote:
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:47:07 GMT, WaIIy
wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 13:01:22 -0500, John H
wrote:

Your little 'right-wing' comments are meaningless. They are what
cause the
comments directed at you, those which your ego leads you to believe
that people
are 'obsessed' with you.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Actually John, if you killfiled crouse, the newsgroup would be one
step
close to a boating group.

Just a suggestion.

There is a reason you reply to him, ask yourself what that reason
is.

Up until this point the discussion was not at all contentious.

But, you're right. Back in he goes.

--
John H

Me too, please.

No. You're too funny.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."