Reply
Tue 29 Mar, 2005 12:18 pm
I didn't write this, but I'm not above stealing from those smarter than myself:
*******************
18 Things We Learned from the Terri Schiavo Case
1) Jeb Bush, George W. Bush, and Tom Delay are all world renowned Neurologists.
2) 22 successive court battles that all ended in exactly the same way means there is something wrong with the courts, not the Schindler's case.
3) Mike is after money which is why he turned down 1 million dollars and 10 million dollars to sign over guardianship.
4) Congress and the State Legislature of Florida has nothing better to do than pry into the private medical affairs of others.
5) Pulling life support is bad in Florida when authorized by the legal next-of-kin, but pulling life support is good in Texas when you run out of money and the mother pleads not to pull the plug on her baby.
6) Medical diagnoses are best performed by watching highly edited videotape made by Randall Terry rather than in person by trained physicians.
7) Minimum wage making nursing assistants are more qualified to diagnose a persistent vegetative state than experienced neurologists.
8 ) Cerebral spinal fluid is a magical potion that can mimic the entire functions of a missing cerebral cortex.
9) 15 years in the same persistent state is not really enough time to make an accurate diagnosis.
10) A feeding tube that infuses yellow nutritional goop is not really "life support."
11) Jesus was wrong when he said that a man and woman should leave their parents and cleave only to each other.
12) Marriage is the most sacred of all unions, except when it isn't.
13) Interfering in a family's private tragedy is a great reason to cut short a vacation, but getting a memo that warns a known terrorist is determine to strike inside the US is cause to relax and finish up some R&R.
14) Pro-lifers are really compassionate people which is why they are hoping that Michael Schiavo dies a horrible painful death.
15) The Supreme Court of the United States and the State Supreme Court of Florida mean "Maybe" when they are saying "No!".
16) Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is a bleeding heart liberal.
17) 7 Supreme Court Justices were appointed by republican presidents, so it's Clinton's fault.
18 ) A judge who makes rulings based on the law is obviously an atheist, liberal, democratic activist even though he is a conservative, republican, Southern Baptist.
Lol nice list, though I would have answered the question with:
1. Nothing.
But that's b/c I'm pessimistic about the intelligence of the average American.
Cycloptichorn
That we all need a DNR, no feeding tube/ventilator order on file with our physicians, lawyers, and families, and to make our intentions well known.
It certainly was a wake up call for the Boomers who haven't prepared for the near future.
I learned that people are stupid.
Oh wait. I already knew that.
I learned that emotional issues are often times politicized and criticized by people who have nothing more to offer the grieving family members than snide comments and personal opinions.
Florida needs to change its laws to avoid the conflicts of interest inherent in this case.
When republicans say one of the core philosophy's of their party is to keep the government out of the private lives of the individual, they don't really mean it.
It sounds like, if nothing else, everyone so far here has learned some valuable lessons. If only we can remember to apply them.
another tidbit I offer, an opinion editorial for sure, but one I agree with. You may disagree which is your right, and I graciously support that right, without thinking that you are stupid even if I think you are wrong in this particular case. I thank you in advance for showing the same tolerance for my opinions.
http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?next=2&ColumnsName=fha
Ticomaya wrote:Florida needs to change its laws to avoid the conflicts of interest inherent in this case.
What changes would you suggest? Specifically? I'm curious as to your ideas.
blueveinedthrobber wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Florida needs to change its laws to avoid the conflicts of interest inherent in this case.
What changes would you suggest? Specifically? I'm curious as to your ideas.
When a spouse is appointed the guardian of an incapacitated spouse, there should be a mechanism to replace the spouse as guardian when said spouse cohabitates or sires/bears children with another person.
Why if they are still legally wed, and what happens in the abscence of living parents or children old enough for the responsibility?
blueveinedthrobber wrote:Why if they are still legally wed, and what happens in the abscence of living parents or children old enough for the responsibility?
Good question, and one I had considered. In the interests of brevity, I did not try and draft an entire bill for this thread, but the changing of guardian would only be done if there was a substitute guardian available that would be in the best interests to appoint to the ward (e.g., parents or adult children). The fact that they are still wed would not be a barrier to the replacement of the wayward spouse as guardian.
You've heard of the 7% solution. May I present the 1-cent solution.
It certainly would be more humane than starvation, cjhsa.
Cycloptichorn
Wouldn't it be prudent then in a living will for the spouse to decide if guardianship were to be changed in advance of any unfortunate incident?
What if a law such as you describe had been on the books for the Schiavo case but to trump it Michael produced a document stating that the wishes of Terri, should something like this happen would be for him to make the decision?
Would this fight have gone on? Would the parents and the ungodly nosy and opportunistic politicans then counter with "Well she may have made that statement previous to her condition but she wouldn't have made it if she'd have known what kind of decision Michael was going to make on her behalf ?"
In other words, does this bullshyt have any ending?
How about a law drafted to assure that the government can't stick their nose into things like this and then with the opportunity to pander to their constituency or garner headlines removed they would revert back to their natural state which is not giving a tinkers damn about Suzy Creamcheese and her medical problems and family disputes?
I'm guessing you were being rhetorical throughout that last post?
Sounds good to me. You draft it...I'll sponsor it.
Ticomaya wrote:I'm guessing you were being rhetorical throughout that last post?
Good guess, but I wonder if you take my point and I'm betting you do.
panzade wrote:Sounds good to me. You draft it...I'll sponsor it.
And then I'll vote for you as my Congressman, Pan ......
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace