| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-04-11, 10:19 pm |
|
Jay Williams wrote:
quote:
> <Stockman91790@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112920147.127101.100670@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
take[vbcol=seagreen]
law[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
used[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> <snip>
>
> There was no murder, no death sentence.
Give it a name then. Would the word "kill" then sound better than
murder? What is your explanation of withholding food and water from
someone in your care? Good medical treatment? When a decision was made
NOT to reinsert her feeding tube would what would you call that? Mercy
killing? I call it murder by judicial ruling and it certainly was a
death sentence to do it. She died as expected. In such a cruel manner
that it required morphine to ease the pain.
Rather her right to decide that
quote:
> under these circumstances, she would rather not live, was protected.
It
quote:
> would have been better that she place that in writing, but there was
> sufficient evidence of her wishes from the testimony of the other
witnesses
quote:
> (testimony that is summarized in the order).
You have ignored what I said about suicide- and I understand why you
did. We do not tolerate suicide except in OR under their strict
conditions which she would not qualify under.
quote:
> Or are you asking for a citation to the Florida Statute that the
legal
quote:
> proceedings were based upon? If so, I'm sure it is in the Order that
I
quote:
> provided. The caselaw relied upon by the trial court which construed
that
quote:
> statute was also cited in the order (In re Browning, I believe). If
not,
quote:
> let me know and I'll look it up for you. Chapter 765, Florida
Statutes
quote:
> would probably be a good starting point.
Federal law does not provide for legal suicide and indeed, provides for
life.
You can quote FL law all you want but you know very well that Federal
law supercedes state law even if there was one. I don't know what laws
you are stating but it does not change our Const. which guarantees our
right to live.
quote:
> Or are you are asking who is responsible for a law you don't agree
with?
quote:
> The answer is the legislators (and by extension the citizens) of the
State
quote:
> of Florida, who have the right to enact such laws as they wish to
live (or
quote:
> die) under. ("State's rights") What right does the State have to
legislate
quote:
> such an area? It is part of the "police powers" of the State to
legislate
quote:
> the morality, health and [public] safety of it's citizens. It is
guaranteed
quote:
> to the States (as opposed to the Federal government) by the Tenth
Amendment
quote:
> to the U.S. Constitution.
What is not covered by our Fed. const. is left to the states but in
this case it is covered Federaly. In any case this remains to be
decided if any change is to be made on a state level.
quote:
> If you feel strongly about it (and apparently you do) I suggest you
check
quote:
> the statutes in your own state and lobby to change them. Also be
sure you
quote:
> draft a living will stating your desires regarding under what
circumstances
quote:
> you would no longer desire to be kept alive (if any such
circumstances do
quote:
> exist.... certainly it is within your rights to be kept alive for as
long as
quote:
> possible, irregardless...) If you want to be kept alive as long as
> possible, then say so in your living will and distribute copies to
your
quote:
> family.
As is the case in CA which I live in- a person can fill out a donor
card, put a sticker on our drivers lic. and tell relatives what our
wishes are, but, it is no guarantee that all of that will count for
anything at all. A live person can change their mind. I could indicate
I do not wish to be kept alive on life support but a relative can
decide otherwise. In daily practice a relative can decide life or death
and people will quietly just die because of it. It is very simple for
staff to just remove meds to do it- I have done it myself under orders
from a dr. It pained me deeply when I did it and considered it legal
murder also. I just followed orders (as they said at Nuremberg).
In Terris case I am sure she had no conscious thought about being set
free- it did not matter to her either way at the point she was at. Very
few people have left instructions about being in that condition. I
haven't- I would not care either way. In this country WE DO NOT KILL
DEFECTIVE PEOPLE- that was done in Germany under Nazi rule. If you have
a stroke, heart attack, pulmonary disease, etc. we try to save peoples
lives, not kill them. Soylent Green is FICTION. Do you want to make it
fact? I fully understand that I have done exactly what I am screaming
loudest against- I am not proud of it and it will always remain a moral
issue for me.
I am sorry you have addressed my questions with only references to laws
that may or may not apply to this case. You have chosen to ignore most
of my comments and sidestepped the majority of my comments. I really
did not expect you to attack it directly since I felt secure in my
assertions. You and I know what I am referring to- others reading this
may wonder about it.
|