Main > Everything Else
Schiavo rumblings
mr.Curmudgeon:
--- Quote from: fredster on March 20, 2005, 11:09:30 am ---MrC - Where in that article can you produce fact on your cheap Bush shot? Discuss.
--- End quote ---
No matter how much you want to deny the facts, fredster, they are undeniable. It isn't a cheap shot...it's the truth. I wonder how you can even defend him given your situation. I see the darkness in the heart of your leader, I wish you could too. He doesn't care about the poor or unforunate, just the "haves and the have mores"......he calls them his "base."
Here's the freakin' law:
In 1999, then Gov. George W. Bush signed the Texas Futile Care Law.
More here....
What more do you want fredster? How long can you ignore these sorts of decisions? The man talks out of both sides of his mouth.
In my eyes, the whole Republican party is tainted with the stench of exploitation given their behavior in this case. If you really believe they are doing this because they care about the "sanctity of marriage" or a "culture of life"....then I've got a bridge to sell you. Cheap. First come, first serve. Where were thay for the past 15 years? Why jump in *now* at the last minute? Here's why:
"ABC News has obtained talking points circulated among Republican senators explaining why they should vote to intervene in the Schiavo case. Among them: "This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." and "This is a great political issue... this is a tough issue for Democrats." (via ABCnews)
Niiiiiiiiiice.
mrC
fredster:
MrC, apparently you didn't read your link in detail.
"This chapter may not be construed to require the
provision of life-sustaining treatment that cannot be provided to a patient without denying the same treatment to another patient."
The purpose of this law is to allow hospitals to deny care and move the patient, and otherwise relieve them of liablity of they cannot be compensated for the treatment. It doens't really cover this and goes further to state - If the patient does not have a legal guardian or an agent
under a medical power of attorney, the attending physician and one
person, if available, from one of the following categories, in the
following priority, may make a treatment decision that may include a decision to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment:
(1) the patient's spouse;
(2) the patient's reasonably available adult children;
(3) the patient's parents; or
(4) the patient's nearest living relative.
(c) A treatment decision made under Subsection (a) or (b)
must be based on knowledge of what the patient would desire, if
known.
This is the issue here. What were Terry's wishes? If this law were applied, then Terry's parents could fight it like they are now and we are in the same mess. This bill doens't cover this. Duh. It says that a hospital doesn't have to foot the bill and the patient must seek other care if that is the case. That is about it.
It's consistent with the President's statements. The issue is whether She would want this or not. That's the issue. Having feeding tubes removed happens just about every day all over the US. Every day Mr.C. I know, I've seen it done PERSONALLY.
As far as being an issue that worries Dems and Republicans are using it for political points, Welcome to politics! In politics the concept of Right and Wrong is replaced with what IS popular and what ISN'T Popular amoung your constiutents. Duh. The dems circulate similar memos about the Republicans. The whole loyal opposition concept.
If Bush says it's Blue, you will argue it's Green. I think it's good we get this type issue in the limelight and see where it is. Let the chips fall where they may. There are a whole lot of people who don't think that life support should ever be removed for any reason. There is another group of people who think there should be suicide machines on street corners.
"This is an important moral issue and the pro-life base will be excited..." Yes, it is. Pro-life people have a vested interest in this don't they? Is the wording that confuses you?
I personally think that if she wanted to die, she should be able to die, and in other methods besides starvation and dehydration. However if she truly wanted to live, then she should be able to live by any means necessary and affordable. The whole issue is her husband says one thing and the family says another.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: fredster on March 20, 2005, 11:09:30 am ---
I do know that I am facing a similar situation in the future, maybe in 5 years. It's a situation that I hope nobody on this board ever has to face in any way shape or form.
--- End quote ---
I'm aware of your situation, bro. Yours isn't similar. You've said her relatives are in agreement with your view, and she isn't bedridden. I also have FAR more faith that whatever you choose to do, it won't appear ANYTHING like this case. Call me silly, but you already don't strike me as coming CLOSE to acting like Schiavo has, and I put a lot of stock in what you've already done for her as a damn good indicator of who you are as a person. More folks could stand to have a little "fredster" in them, IMO.
DrewKaree:
--- Quote from: mr.Curmudgeon on March 20, 2005, 12:32:12 pm ---
Where were thay for the past 15 years? Why jump in *now* at the last minute?
--- End quote ---
This hasn't been a "jump in at the last minute issue. It's been something that's worked its way through the court system, and the politicians contacted and closely involved with this case have spoken with the family and TOLD them they need to let the legal system work it through, they saw it to be a fairly easy case, given the legal system's requirements if she had completed a living will. The tenuous claims of one side vs the tenuous claims of the other side simply came down to the judge ruling in favor of one side over the other based on what is best described as hearsay.
Every talk radio show and politician jumping in on this is doing so because the case is FINALLY getting attention because she will be dead soon without them trying to intervene.
It's just like someone on death row wrongfully accused. You don't hear of the one (or few) people speaking or working about it until everything comes to a head. You provide "talking points memos" and ignore the use of this case and a vote to further an agenda by your side as well.
BOTH sides haven't done their level best to do something about a situation like this, which affects the people most in need of the government's help on this.
JB:
--- Quote from: DrewKaree on March 20, 2005, 02:03:17 pm ---Every talk radio show and politician jumping in on this is doing so because the case is FINALLY getting attention because she will be dead soon without them trying to intervene.
--- End quote ---
For a third time. It's not new, just sporadic.
They were all over it when the tube was removed in 2003. They lost interest shortly after the Florida court system smacked "Terri's law" down and the tube went back in.
It's only interesting when something besides talk is happening.
The media doesn't care which way it's swinging, as long as it's just not "So yeah, that whole Schiavo thingie is still in the courts, some lawyers said some stuff, and nothing actually happened."
They don't care if Schiavo dies, if her parents get guardianship and keep her on life support for as long as possible, if her or her husband is assassinated, or really anything. As long as it looks like something's happening.
They may make a pretense of raising moral questions, do a 20/20 special on the right to die, or something similar, but don't be fooled. It's all about ratings and ad dollars. Nothing more, nothing less.