Florida court strikes down 'Terri's Law'

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is great news!!!

Our prayers have been answered! (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/09/23/schiavo/index.html)

[Tmy]

They should keep a running tab on just how much its costing to keep Terris shell alive all this time.

[Patrick]

This is great news!!!

How do you figure? The grounds seem questionable. Yet another example of the judiciary imposing its will and sweeping aside that of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

[jj]

Originally posted by Patrick
This is great news!!!

How do you figure? The grounds seem questionable. Yet another example of the judiciary imposing its will and sweeping aside that of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

I see, Patrick, the will of the people as expressed by their elected representitives should be allowed to enforce a state of continuous torture on an unwilling innocent. Is that what you're saying?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Patrick
This is great news!!!

How do you figure? The grounds seem questionable. Yet another example of the judiciary imposing its will and sweeping aside that of the people as expressed by their elected representatives.

I had been praying that the lord would overturn this unjust law. My lord is great!!!

[Dorian Gray]

Yet another example of the judiciary imposing its will and sweeping aside that of the people as expressed by their elected representatives. Who gives a rat's ass if everyone in the entire world disagrees with Terri's husband? It's his decision. If you want Terri to remain alive, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and pay the hospital and care bills? By the way, as a Florida native, Terri's husband is 'the people' and the judiciary was imposing HIS will.

[Patrick]

I see, Patrick, the will of the people as expressed by their elected representitives should be allowed to enforce a state of continuous torture on an unwilling innocent. Is that what you're saying?

"Continuous torture"?? Do you have complete contempt for the meaning of words?

[Patrick]

Who gives a rat's ass if everyone in the entire world disagrees with Terri's husband? It's his decision.

It's the decision of a relative whether someone lives or dies??? Gosh, so much for consitutional rights, the rule of law, and due process.

[varwoche]

Originally posted by Patrick Do you have complete contempt for the meaning of words?
Either you are actually as noxious of a human being as some of your posts depict, or else this post of yours wins the all-time irony award.

[Patrick]

or else this post of yours wins the all-time irony award.

SURRRRRRRE, she's being "continuously tortured"!!! Oh wait, I get it ... your statement above is very clever second-order irony! :D

[merphie]

I think it is a terrible thing to even have to think about such a situation.

I am divided. Surely she would not want to be in such a state, but the thought of dying from starvation is anothing idea.

I think it was wrong for the legislators to get involved in the matter and agree that they should have struck the law down.

I am glad it didn't happen to me. I think my wife would pull the plug after a few weeks. :p

[epepke]

Originally posted by merphie
I think it is a terrible thing to even have to think about such a situation.

I am divided. Surely she would not want to be in such a state, but the thought of dying from starvation is anothing idea.

I think it was wrong for the legislators to get involved in the matter and agree that they should have struck the law down.

I am glad it didn't happen to me. I think my wife would pull the plug after a few weeks. :p

Well, there's a problem with politicizing this kind of thing. I guess Jack Kevorkian is still in prison, but he used to travel with his Amazing Van O' Death quite a lot.

Physicians have always assisted in suicide, but it was considered a private thing, not for public consumption. The battle against plus-4 treatment in all cases was won years ago. The whole point of getting this bill passed in the first place was so that Jeb Bush could crow about the case.

Making it all political screws up what IMO should be a private matter between a dying person, the physician, and the family.

[Patrick]

Physicians have always assisted in suicide...what IMO should be a private matter between a dying person, the physician, and the family.

Suicide isn't the issue, hockey puck, and the "dying person" - the person who will bear the consequences of a decision, is unable to give her opinion. You've utterly miscast the situation.

[merphie]

Originally posted by epepke
Well, there's a problem with politicizing this kind of thing. I guess Jack Kevorkian is still in prison, but he used to travel with his Amazing Van O' Death quite a lot.

Physicians have always assisted in suicide, but it was considered a private thing, not for public consumption. The battle against plus-4 treatment in all cases was won years ago. The whole point of getting this bill passed in the first place was so that Jeb Bush could crow about the case.

Making it all political screws up what IMO should be a private matter between a dying person, the physician, and the family.

I think Patrick has a point. The family doesn't want her to die and the husband believes it is in the best interest of Terri. I think under law the husband has the authority. That's why the law was past.

I think it was wrong for politicians to get involved in the matter. I agree it's a private matter. Personally, I don't know if I could take the position of either side.

I wouldn't want her to suffer. If her body is just a shell then there is nothing left to suffer. I don't know if I could "pull the plug".

[Dorian Gray]

I wonder if the husband's insurance was paying for any of this. That would certainly be ironic.

[Larspeart]

Good deal. she died years ago, and her corpse is costing the world a fortune to keep from rotting.

SHE IS DEAD, folks.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Larspeart
Good deal. she died years ago, and her corpse is costing the world a fortune to keep from rotting.

SHE IS DEAD, folks.

She maybe gone mentally but her body is still alive and that is something you can hold on to.

It would be easier to miss someone and still be able to hug them than miss them and visit their grave.

[American]

Why do you want sick women to die?


Leave her alone, she's getting better.

[Dorian Gray]

She maybe gone mentally but her body is still alive and that is something you can hold on to.

It would be easier to miss someone and still be able to hug them than miss them and visit their grave. Jesus Christ, you make me sick.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Jesus Christ, you make me sick.

I'm not certain of how severe this illness is that you apparently caught from the Messiah, but you'd better prepare a living will just in case.

[jj]

Originally posted by merphie
She maybe gone mentally but her body is still alive and that is something you can hold on to.

It would be easier to miss someone and still be able to hug them than miss them and visit their grave.

So, the taxpayer should support someone in a persistant vegetative state for a third party's selfish reasons?

[jj]

Originally posted by Patrick
Suicide isn't the issue, hockey puck, and the "dying person" - the person who will bear the consequences of a decision, is unable to give her opinion. You've utterly miscast the situation.

The person indicated her wishes previously to being unable to give her opinion. The person no longer exists unless the medical reports are false, all we have left is a shell that a machine keeps running. The person isn't there any more.

Is there a reason that you've become such an arrogant bully recently? Your behavior always did suggest borderline MPD, but you've gone over the edge. Is it the thrill of thinking that you might succeed in electing a president who will overturn the constitutional separation of church and state? Is it the charm of thinking that your behavior will be permitted in the Brave New World?

What's up with you, Patrick? You've seemed off from the beginning, but now you're just over the top and down the far side.

[HarryKeogh]

will they really let her starve to death instead of administering drugs to end it ASAP?

[merphie]

Originally posted by jj
So, the taxpayer should support someone in a persistant vegetative state for a third party's selfish reasons?

I didn't say that. Is her care using tax payer money? Does money justify killing someone.

If Terri's mind is working or not is irrelevant. By refusing treatment they would be killing her.

[Patrick]

So, the taxpayer should support someone in a persistant vegetative state for a third party's selfish reasons?

More like the government should sanction a state killing for someone's selfish reasons!

[Patrick]

The person indicated her wishes previously to being unable to give her opinion.

Yaaaaa SURRRRRRE she did! Her husband, the person who wants to off her so that he'll be done with her, OF COURSE claims that she did, and provides absolutely no proof.

The person no longer exists unless the medical reports are false, all we have left is a shell that a machine keeps running. The person isn't there any more.

This is the same kind of mind-fu_King "defining people out of the human race", as is used for fetuses in abortion, and will probably be used for the very elderly, the physically deformed or retarded soon enough. Just like with the nazis who defined jews as "untermenschen" - sub-humans.

What's up with you, Patrick? You've seemed off from the beginning, but now you're just over the top and down the far side.

What's up with YOU is that you belong to a pack of closed-minded liberals, who come here and mutually reinforce each other's delusions, illogic, ignorance, and brainwashing. Then when someone comes along with (gasp!) a counter-opinion disruptive to the worldview you've constructed in your brains, you're SHOCKED! Just SHOCKED!

[Mr Manifesto]

Why so concerned about euthanasia, Pat? Are you afraid that if a precedent is set, someone might turn off the life-supports you're on right now?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
The person indicated her wishes previously to being unable to give her opinion.

Yaaaaa SURRRRRRE she did! Her husband, the person who wants to off her so that he'll be done with her, OF COURSE claims that she did, and provides absolutely no proof.

The person no longer exists unless the medical reports are false, all we have left is a shell that a machine keeps running. The person isn't there any more.

This is the same kind of mind-fu_King "defining people out of the human race", as is used for fetuses in abortion, and will probably be used for the very elderly, the physically deformed or retarded soon enough. Just like with the nazis who defined jews as "untermenschen" - sub-humans.

Patrick, I guess the rest of us don't know the husband as well as you do, that you know his motives with such certainty, as well as the lady's wishes in the matter. And being able to define what it is that makes a person alive and a person is also a neat trick. I had imagined that was a philosophical point open to argument, but I guess you know best. You always seem to. And you keep such a cool, rational tone throughout your well-ordered, well-reasoned, non-inflammatory posts that aren't stuffed full of insult and venom.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by merphie
I didn't say that. Is her care using tax payer money? Does money justify killing someone.

If Terri's mind is working or not is irrelevant. By refusing treatment they would be killing her.

Is it OK to force treatment on someone who doesnt want it?? Legally Terri doesnt/cant make her own decisions. That falls to her husband as the Guardian. SO they are not refusing treatment, "she" (via the husband) doesnt want it anymore.

What do people expect to happen?? That Terri will magiacally wake up. Dream on. maybe they can cast her in "Weekend at Bernies 3: Bernie gets married"

[merphie]

Originally posted by Tmy
Is it OK to force treatment on someone who doesnt want it?? Legally Terri doesnt/cant make her own decisions. That falls to her husband as the Guardian. SO they are not refusing treatment, "she" (via the husband) doesnt want it anymore.

What do people expect to happen?? That Terri will magiacally wake up. Dream on. maybe they can cast her in "Weekend at Bernies 3: Bernie gets married"

I agree. They also have it where you can declare yourself "no code" which means they won't try to bring you back.

I understand what you are saying and that's how I see it. The other stuff my personal feelings but I would not force my values and thoughts on her husband. That's for the religious zealots to do.

[Tmy]

I feel for the husband. People try to make him outto be Scott Peterson. Shes been a veg for like 10 years. The guy doesnt have any sinister motive.

If they had the family dog living like this, wed say that was inhumane. Why should we coddle this delusional family? Cause of sympathy??

How about the thousands of people who couldve been given health care with $$ being wasted on Terri. I wonder what the family would say to them.

[Patrick]

Patrick, I guess the rest of us don't know the husband as well as you do,

That the husband should provide proof, for example a living will, or witnesses to her supposed opinions, has nothing at all to do with knowing the husband, lightning brain.

[Patrick]

Is it OK to force treatment on someone who doesnt want it??

Pure fantasy! Neither you nor anyone else knows her opinion!

[Patrick]

I understand what you are saying and that's how I see it. The other stuff my personal feelings but I would not force my values and thoughts on her husband. That's for the religious zealots to do.

Religious zealots: people who doubt the ethicality of killing human beings for the sake of convenience.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
Pure fantasy! Neither you nor anyone else knows her opinion!

Her husband says he does, and her parents say they do. The disagreement between them is the source of the problem.

You might not be able to tell which one is telling the truth, but in a yes/no situation with both positions claimed, somebody has to be right.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
That the husband should provide proof, for example a living will, or witnesses to her supposed opinions, has nothing at all to do with knowing the husband, lightning brain.

I was referring to your knowledge of his motives, not his knowledge of her wishes. You claim he's acting out of "selfish reasons." What are they, and how do you know his motives? You claim he cannot know his wife's wishes, but you who have never met this man know his motives? Interesting.

[Patrick]

Why should we coddle this delusional family?

"We" again!

And now the family is "delusional"? You're a 100% nutcase, inventing imaginary "facts" as you go along.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
What's up with YOU is that you belong to a pack of closed-minded liberals, who come here and mutually reinforce each other's delusions, illogic, ignorance, and brainwashing. Then when someone comes along with (gasp!) a counter-opinion disruptive to the worldview you've constructed in your brains, you're SHOCKED! Just SHOCKED!

Again, Patrick, it is you who are creating the illusion of a group in league against you.

[Patrick]

You claim he's acting out of "selfish reasons." What are they, and how do you know his motives?

The guy won $1.2 million in 1992 for her rehabilitative costs, but has refused to spend any of it on her. He moved in with another woman and has had children with her, but refuses to get divorced from his wife so that he can cash in on her life insurance. This guys' motives are OBVIOUS to all but the the terminally liberal-brainwashed. I'm not going to use thirty posts to explain the case to you - go read up and come back when you know something.

[Patrick]

Again, Patrick, it is you who are creating the illusion of a group in league against you.

:D

You're in league against yourselves! You're like a bunch of loons who sit in the game room of a looney bin, mutually sucking in each others' PC fantasy views of the world, while the REAL world goes on outside! :D

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Patrick
You claim he's acting out of "selfish reasons." What are they, and how do you know his motives?

The guy won $1.2 million in 1992 for her rehabilitative costs, but has refused to spend any of it on her. He moved in with another woman and has had children with her, but refuses to get divorced from his wife so that he can cash in on her life insurance. This guys' motives are OBVIOUS to all but the the terminally liberal-brainwashed. I'm not going to use thirty posts to explain the case to you - go read up and come back when you know something.

Please. The medical caretakers would put a line on that rehab money faster than you could plotz. How much do you think a decade of 24/7 care would costs?? Id say more than $1.2 mill.

I love this bleeding heart conservative feux-sympathy. Carpet bomb some muslim country. No problem. Pull the plug on a christian zombie.......NEVER!

[merphie]

Originally posted by Patrick
I understand what you are saying and that's how I see it. The other stuff my personal feelings but I would not force my values and thoughts on her husband. That's for the religious zealots to do.

Religious zealots: people who doubt the ethicality of killing human beings for the sake of convenience.

I was not referring to those people.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
You claim he's acting out of "selfish reasons." What are they, and how do you know his motives?

The guy won $1.2 million in 1992 for her rehabilitative costs, but has refused to spend any of it on her. He moved in with another woman and has had children with her, but refuses to get divorced from his wife so that he can cash in on her life insurance. This guys' motives are OBVIOUS to all but the the terminally liberal-brainwashed. I'm not going to use thirty posts to explain the case to you - go read up and come back when you know something.

Ignoring the gratuitous insults, I would have to ask you how much you imagine full-time medical care and life support costs per decade. Do you really imagine there's any money left after the medical bills? Not to mention the legal bills? And why should he have to divorce her? His position is that she's already dead, and that all that's left is an animated corpse. In his view, he's been a widower for years. Should he not be allowed to continue his own life?

Anyway, the man's motivations are utterly irrelevant. Either the lady is alive or she is dead. It is a legitimate point to argue. Motivations for any individual to take a particular side do not alter the question at hand. Is a brain-dead coma victim alive or not? If so, do previously expressed wishes of the victim matter? Which carries greater weight--the wishes of the parents, or the wishes of the spouse? All of these are the questions that merit philosophical and rational debate.

The specific details of this situation are also open to argument, but I suggest that while lacking evidence and testimony (such as is presented in the courts during the legal battle) bringing them up is serving to cloud the debate on the broader philosophical and political questions.

Even if the man has sinister motives, does that give the state the right to keep the lady alive?

[merphie]

Originally posted by Patrick
You claim he's acting out of "selfish reasons." What are they, and how do you know his motives?

The guy won $1.2 million in 1992 for her rehabilitative costs, but has refused to spend any of it on her. He moved in with another woman and has had children with her, but refuses to get divorced from his wife so that he can cash in on her life insurance. This guys' motives are OBVIOUS to all but the the terminally liberal-brainwashed. I'm not going to use thirty posts to explain the case to you - go read up and come back when you know something.

Got Sources?

[AtheistArchon]

I love this bleeding heart conservative feux-sympathy. Carpet bomb some muslim country. No problem. Pull the plug on a christian zombie.......NEVER!

- Bwah... can I quote you?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
You're in league against yourselves! You're like a bunch of loons who sit in the game room of a looney bin, mutually sucking in each others' PC fantasy views of the world, while the REAL world goes on outside! :D

I'm merely pointing out that is it you who keep referring to "you liberals" multiple times. You're the one seeing this as "Patrick versus a group", and your language reflects that. Having put the rest of us together into a single group, you then complain when someone else responds with the word "us"!

The fact that not everyone posting in this thread is either liberal or in agreement doesn't seem to register. But I understand it's difficult to persuade people of reality when they suffer from delusions of persecution.

Edited for typo
Lol. Edited again for same typo.

[Patrick]

Got Sources?

It's all over the net - go read! :)

[Patrick]

Not to mention the legal bills? And why should he have to divorce her? His position is that she's already dead, and that all that's left is an animated corpse. In his view, he's been a widower for years. Should he not be allowed to continue his own life?

Why, SURE! Wife get's real sick? Big medical bills? This ain't quantum mechanics - just off the biitch! :D

[Patrick]

You're the one seeing this as "Patrick versus a group"

You keep trying to project your group-think imaginings on the real world, but us folks outside the looney bin are just going to toss it back in the window! :D

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick

Why, SURE! Wife get's real sick? Big medical bills? This ain't quantum mechanics - just off the biitch! :D

You dodge the question of what makes a person alive, and whether a person continues to exist when they are brain dead. I take it you are advancing the position that a person lives while certain bodily functions continue, whether assisted or not? Which functions? Which organs? At what point does death occur?

These are the questions you would be willing to answer if you were seriously interested in rational debate...but as usual, you're more interested in advancing strawmen, dispensing insults, making wild assumptions, claiming people are in league against you, and backing away from any suggestion that you present evidence for your positions to the point of submitting a single link. Patrick, you are an amusing conversationalist, but you don't qualify as a rational debater. You are ideally suited to host an opinion talk show on AM radio, but not to craft arguments for a political or philosophical position.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
You keep trying to project your group-think imaginings on the real world, but us folks outside the looney bin are just going to toss it back in the window! :D

I have quoted some of the instances in which you begin referring to the other posters as a group. You do so again, above. You are either being deliberately dense or, well, dense but not deliberately. Neither inspires rational debate.

[Patrick]

I have quoted some of the instances in which you begin referring to the other posters as a group. You do so again, above. You are either being deliberately dense or, well, dense but not deliberately.

You not only can't read, you can't remember what you yourself said! Y'all CERTAINLY engage in group-think, the part I objected to was your bogus claim that I thought it was against ME. Actually as I pointed out, it's against THE REAL WORLD! :D

[TragicMonkey]

Completely by the way, Patrick, I have never once stated whether I approve or disapprove of taking the lady off her life support. You rather jump to conclusions about the views of people who disagree with your "arguments", don't you?

[Patrick]

Gota go to work - hasta la vista! :)

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by Patrick
You not only can't read, you can't remember what you yourself said! Y'all CERTAINLY engage in group-think, the part I objected to was your bogus claim that I thought it was against ME. Actually as I pointed out, it's against THE REAL WORLD! :D

Is this a singular "you"? Please quote the post in which I stated I agree with the other posters on this issue.

[merphie]

Originally posted by Patrick
Got Sources?

It's all over the net - go read! :)

Nice way to dance around the issue.

[daenku32]

Originally posted by Patrick
So, the taxpayer should support someone in a persistant vegetative state for a third party's selfish reasons?

More like the government should sanction a state killing for someone's selfish reasons!

You seem to take the conservative christian line of thinking that pulling the plug on her would be killing by the state.

If the courts didn't exist, neither would the legistlative, meaning the woman would have been dead by now, by the actions of the husband. Not the state.