|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Terri Schiavo and the separation of powers | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
purpledawn Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: |
What I don't understand is why the Flordia Court didn't just give guardianship to the parents.
I've caught bits and pieces, so I may have missed something, but supposedly the parents wanted guardianship. I would think that it would have been a better choice for the courts to change the guardianship than deciding to remove the feeding tube, especially since the husband has supposedly moved on. "The average man does not know what to do with this life, yet wants another one which lasts forever." --Anatole France
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2900 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
The history of the case is that her husband and parents where in agreement for the first long years after her braindamage.
When the husband finally gave up - and acknowledged the fact that the she no longer existed as a person, he approached the courts and asked them to rule if she should be kept alive. In the following trial the husband represented the case against keeping her alive, and the parents the case against. The court ruled that she should not be kept alive. It is this court ruling that ultimately caused her feeding to be removed. So her husband has no say in this anymore. If he divorced her and the guardianship was transfered on her parents the ruling would still stand. Furthermore. In PVS you can still track objects with your eyes, and display emotional responsen such as Terry does. But you only do it sometimes and generally display such responses at random. In one of the court cases the court viewed all 4 1/2 hours of recordings of Terry and decided that what looked responsive in the 40 seconds snippets displayed on her parents website was not the norm, but seemed to be random occurences. This is the same diagnosis that most of the physicians who have actually examined her came to. Furthermore her CAT scan show most of highe brain to be missing. The 14 affadavits supplied in the latest motion is from people who have never seen her, or only seen the small snippets displayed on her parents website. So to sum it up. The courts has allready, on several occasions decided the case on its merits. The courts have found that the medical evidence is not in question. Her husbands interest in this is to see what he sees as her last will carried through, an oppinion he shares with the impartial court. /Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Thanks for the more detailed explanation. Although I suppose I still have some questions off of this.
Granted that I am understanding the court system overwhelmingly favored the husband's decision (in more than one trial if I heard right), and that personally I agree with the husband, I still wonder if there is some merit for the general legislation (as I heard it) proposed. What is the legislation, and does it simply call for federal review of contended cases? If so, then I am not sure that I see any problem with this. If the facts are correct, and legal situations have not changed, then what is the potential for a federal review to have any effect? I guess everyone is free to note the utter hypocrisy of any Republican ordering a federal review of a state decision, but that just continues the slide they started after the 2000 election, and I am not seeing a specific downside. Hope no one thinks I am actually siding with Bush and Co on this. I am just not seeing the overt badness of the legislation (at least the version I heard). holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bob_gray Member (Idle past 5043 days) Posts: 243 From: Virginia Joined: |
Hope no one thinks I am actually siding with Bush and Co on this. I am just not seeing the overt badness of the legislation (at least the version I heard). I don't think you have to worry about this, unless this is the first post of yours someone is reading. As far as the federal legislation is concerned I do not think that there is any merit to it. In my opinion the federal government has way overstepped its authority in this matter. How does this in any way relate to the running of the country? This is _clearly_ a case best left to the states.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2900 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
If it is really true that Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to unhook patients over the wishes of relatives, in order to save money, why is no one hammering on this in the media?
This would be a great way to stick it to Bush. In fact if what came out of this is a federal move to undue that piece of legislation, that'd be great. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
berberry Inactive Member |
holmes asks:
quote: They are, although not very loudly. I've heard this on both CNN and MSNBC today, so at least it isn't being ignored entirely. In fact, MSNBC went so far as to show examples of the Texas law being applied in cases as recently as last week, where feeding tubes were disconnected. It's just one more example of right-wing hypocrisy. Keep America Safe AND Free!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kongstad Member (Idle past 2900 days) Posts: 175 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Joined: |
I think perhaps the "in order to save money" is a little colourful, perhaps the hospitals deem that there is no gain for the patients in prolonging their lives. Just like the doctors think in the case that has your legislature running amok!
/Soren
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Because your media is compliant and toothless, and merely reports government statements rather than questioning them.
quote: And why would they want to do that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Contra, why on earth are you trying to start an argument? I think my question was essentially rhetorical and assuming that news media is deficient (and this is not the first time I have told you that I admit the general US news media is deficient).
holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tsig Member (Idle past 2939 days) Posts: 738 From: USA Joined: |
Any further legislation would also violate the bill-of-attainder provision, wouldn't it? A bill-of-attainder is a bill that historically was used to ataint an indvidual. Generally he was to be executed and all his property was confiscated by the government(crown). It usally applied to all his relatives.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: Why do you construe a direct answer to your question as a desire to start an argument?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Why do you construe a direct answer to your question as a desire to start an argument? Because it was not a direct answer, it was simply a slam job. For instance, what is "my" media? I am in Holland, and I watch British and European news sources. Yet you say my media is toothless etc etc, which can only be a ref to US media which I have already criticized, so there is no point in your answer. My statement was suggesting that there was a lapse in the media, but what was the source? For US it might be obvious, but what about foreign media? Have you been seeing this getting broadcast in England or any other Euro news? The first place I heard it was here, the next place I saw it happened to be a US news source. Instead of finding an excuse to inject diatribe, why not come up with a serious answer, especially when you feel compelled to answer a rhetorical question? Okay, this probably all sounds meaner than I meant it. I apologize if it sounds a bit hostile. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
contracycle Inactive Member |
quote: No, it was a direct answer.
quote: Not specifically, probably because Bush cannot be any further discredited. This sort of proposition does have cogent arguments in its favour, of the accounting variety. The answer to the question as to why this was not used to attack Bush is that US media has no interest in doing so. They do not question, they merely report.
quote: Why don't you accept an honest answer when you get one?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
Why don't you accept an honest answer when you get one? Ughhh... I didn't say it wasn't honest. I don't think it was direct, and it appeared to be seeking an argument where there didn't need to be one, simply due to its provocative nature. If you meant it as direct and nonprovocative, fine, I took it the wrong way. I apologize. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024