0
   

Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Forums: Terri Schiavo, Politics, Euthanasia
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 07:23 pm
nimh wrote:
Why do I always get the feeling that once people start using giant-sized bold bright-coloured font, they've got something to compensate for in terms of their argument?


Perhaps you could comment on the CONTENT rather than make snide insinuations based on font/color. I always get the feeling, when people start complaining about font/color rather than addressing the content, they've got nothing better to add to the discussion.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 07:36 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
Perhaps you could comment on the CONTENT rather than make snide insinuations based on font/color. I always get the feeling, when people start complaining about font/color rather than addressing the content, they've got nothing better to add to the discussion.

I have no knowledge about the intricacies of US law Parados is discussing with you, and I prefer to stay silent on things I don't know anything about.

Instead I replied re: an aspect of the case about which I did have a link to bring - namely, what the opinion polls say.

And I used the occasion to also express my annoyance at the needless excess in font size and colour. It creates a distinct impression, to me.

And?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 07:55 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote, "It was probably one of thousands of laws he signed, and he probably signed it without an absolute realization of how it could be abused." Sounds like the same result from all the other laws he signed that backfired. ** That's what I was planning to say, but I take it back.

That is the kind of non-specific character assasination comment that could be said about anyone. This is being treated as though he diabolically asked his henchmen to dream up some law to screw the innocent, when, in fact, as I understand it, this type of futile care law is ubiquitous. As someone who advocates the murder by starvation of a helpless person deliberately, and not because something backfired, one wonders how you have room to accuse.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:02 pm
I have to agree with Brandon. The law Bush signed in 1999 has nothing to do with this case. I linked to the actual law about thirty pages ago and pointed out that it deals with treatment that is deemed inappropriate. There is no way you can say that feeding someone is inappropriate care.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:10 pm
Adrian wrote:
I have to agree with Brandon. The law Bush signed in 1999 has nothing to do with this case. I linked to the actual law about thirty pages ago and pointed out that it deals with treatment that is deemed inappropriate. There is no way you can say that feeding someone is inappropriate care.

Furthermore, even if it is, in fact, a bad law, it is a very common sort of law all over the country. I have run into it myself when relatives were dying. It is entirely possible that among the thousands of laws Bush undoubtedly signed as governor, he trusted his medical advisors and didn't think out every way it could be abused.

Someone here even described this law as saying that medical care could be witheld from the poor, which is nonsense. This law says nothing of the kind.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:11 pm
Adrian/Brandon, It's not about "inappropriate treatment" that I'm talking about. It's about the fact that Bush signed a law in Texas that allows hospitals to discontinue treatment on the basis of the patient's inability to pay.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:11 pm
How does this reconcile with "every life is important?"
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:12 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Adrian/Brandon, It's not about "inappropriate treatment" that I'm talking about. It's about the fact that Bush signed a law in Texas that allows hospitals to discontinue treatment on the basis of the patient's inability to pay.

Give me even one citation to that, or else give me the standard evasion about how you won't document something so often discussed, etc.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:23 pm
Brandon

Quote:
Whether we win or lose, murder is wrong, and people who promote it are murderers.


Oh, really? You don't feel the same way about innocent people killed in wars at all and have stated several times that their deaths are justified as long as the goal is achieved. Since when are you so concerned with the lives of innocents?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:23 pm
Bush really did sign a law saying that or very nearly that.
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:25 pm
CI/Edgar.

I have heard this claim numerous times but as yet haven't seen anyone provide evidence of it being true. Can either of you provide a link?
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:34 pm
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002215324_texaslaw22.html

Quote:
Bush spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush vetoed 1997 legislation that would have put into law Texas hospital policies that gave families virtually no protections and as little as 72 hours to find alternative care after a hospital decided to stop treatment.

Under the 1999 law, another White House official said, Bush expanded that time to 10 days and authorized family members to seek extensions in court, but acknowledged that if the challenges fell short, "under the legislation, the hospital still could authorize the end of life."
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:37 pm
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:37 pm
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html
0 Replies
 
Adrian
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:38 pm
Ah but that's the same law I linked to Soz and it deals with care deemed inappropriate not only by the treating doctor but also the hospitals ethics commitee.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:41 pm
Yup, it doesnt say anything about the right of hospitals to suspend treatment (and let somebody die) because someone doesnt have the money - which is what you and c.i. were saying I think, Edgar.
0 Replies
 
Gelisgesti
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:43 pm
Quote:



In one case [Terri] Bush maintains that the family should have the right to decide ... on another [Sun Hudson] Bush maintains the right can be as removed as the care facility.

Something wrong here .....

Source
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:44 pm
It wasn't what I said. I said there was a law similar to what CI described, but I didn't know the details.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:44 pm
I do think that's implied. If the hospital can decide, the hospital can decide -- and while they certainly shouldn't consider it, money is certainly a consideration for hospitals.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Mar, 2005 08:48 pm
It could be that in secret they let money influence their decisions. But, by the quoted article, one can't know.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Sciavo - Couldn't we figure this out while she was "alive"? - Discussion by thethinkfactory
Do you accept all court decisions without question? - Discussion by Lash
ACLU Taking on Schiavo Case - Discussion by Phoenix32890
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?
  3. » Page 32
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 11:48:09
▲ ▼