 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
its too simple for people to believe
|
|
|  |
 |
|
SpencerH
|
 |
Co-Ruler of my patch of land south of Birmingham Alabama
Feb 2002 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
Being mentally retarded in never treated the same as being commatose or vegetative. Such people are assumed to be incapable of making the right decision, BUT they are still concious and capable of doing something- so the assumption, rightly, is that unless they say so, they must be kept alive- and since they can;t really make sucha decision, they are kept alive. |
You seem to be assuming that by mentally retarded I meant people with low IQ (for example). Mental retardation includes people who's mental capabilities have degenerated to the levels of Terri Schiavo as well as people born with such levels (as well as those with lower than normal IQ's). As I stated before, there are tens of thousands of people in the USA with mental capabilities as retarded as Terri Schiavo (ie they will not recover and they are not capable of 'doing something'). In essense their mental state is no different from that of Terri Schiavo.
quote: Someone who is comatose or vegetative is not even concious. They are in a whole nother legal category. |
Terri Schiavo is clearly concious. Whether they are another legal category is based solely upon a court ruling. I'd rather see the congress make the laws than the courts.
quote: And in this case there is testimony that the patient asked not to be kept in such a state. The courts have found the claim to be valid. |
I have no argument with what they accept or dont.
quote: I see no worthwhile parallel between the two situations. |
Then you're not paying attention 
quote: The Court accepted the statement that the patient did not want to be kept in such a state and evidence that her state is permanent. |
I have no argument with what they accept or dont.
quote: Such rulings have occured many times before. |
That doesnt make them right. It simply means that congress has been too cowardly to address the issue.
quote: [SIZE=1] The only thing special about this case has been the Schindler's family's adept use of the media and its ability to muster politically connected interest groups to back its losing court case. |
Perhaps
quote: No, its American jurisprudence based on the laws passed by the people of the states who have jurisdiction over this civil matter. |
What laws?
Euthanasia is illegal.
Stopping extraordinary treatment that maintains an artificial semblance of life is legal under certain circumstances. That decision came from the Karen Ann Quinlan case. Its interesting to note that when the respirator was turned off, Karen Quinlan continued to breathe by herself (I dont remember how many days). No one thought it was OK to starve her to death. I doubt very much that the judge who made the compassionate decision to allow that respirator to be turned off dreamed that it would be the precedent for starving this woman to death.
As I said before, your position seems to be that if a person is incapable of feeding themselves then sustenance is defined as treatment. If they then meet some arbitrary, court defined, level of mental incompetance and some other conditions are met, then 'treatment' may be legally witheld.
That is a bizarre position to take.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:34
|
|
quote: Originally posted by SpencerH
You seem to be assuming that by mentally retarded I meant people with low IQ (for example). Mental retardation includes people who's mental capabilities have degenerated to the levels of Terri Schiavo as well as people born with such levels (as well as those with lower than normal IQ's). As I stated before, there are tens of thousands of people in the USA with mental capabilities as retarded as Terri Schiavo (ie they will not recover and they are not capable of 'doing something'). In essense their mental state is no different from that of Terri Schiavo. |
If they are in a permanent vegitatiev state, and the legal guardians can prove to a court the person wanted to die, no problems.
quote:
Terri Schiavo is clearly concious. Whether they are another legal category is based solely upon a court ruling. I'd rather see the congress make the laws than the courts. |
WHAT!
You ahev done what? Seen 5 minutes of clips from over 4 hours of tapes? And yet somehow you can make a better judgement than the 5 doctors, 2 for the husband, 2 for the family, and one for thee court found? including one doctor what examined her for 20 hours?
The Courts were in no univers emaking the laws- they had extensive expert testinomy.
quote:
What laws?
Euthanasia is illegal. |
It is legal to remove life support or take out a feeding tube once a person is in a permanent vegitative state, which is WHY the court had her exmained by mutliple doctors.
quote:
As I said before, your position seems to be that if a person is incapable of feeding themselves then sustenance is defined as treatment. If they then meet some arbitrary, court defined, level of mental incompetance and some other conditions are met, then 'treatment' may be legally witheld.
That is a bizarre position to take. |
If the person is a vegetable and the legal guardian decides to end life, that is legal. I am sorry, but it is you who has a starnge position, speically gioven you seem to be significantly ignorant of the findings of fact in this case.
The court decision is NOT arbitrary- 7 years in court, examined by 19 judges, multiple appeals... I fail to see how the courts "made law" with this case.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002 time: 21:34
|
|
the man you elected 51% of america
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34. Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|