| Jay Williams 2005-04-12, 6:25 pm |
| <Stockman91790@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112937631.613197.68530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
> Jay Williams wrote:
>
>
> You have ignored what I said about suicide- and I understand why you
> did.
The decision to forgo treatment is not suicide under the law.
<snip>
quote:
> 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.
Oh, boy, where do I start... It is amazing what either isn't covered in
civics (or "social studies"), or is forgotten... But I confess, I couldn't
have quoted an obscure (but probably the most important) amendment like the
10th prior to law school either, so don't feel too bad.
First, re-read the 10th amendment. Take a passing glance at the Commerce
Clause as well. This is important and apparently a lot of people don't know
it.
Federal law does not trump state law, except where specifically provided in
the Constitution. That is the basis of Federalism. The only time Federal
law has any power over state laws is when the issue falls under federal
jurisdiction specifically provided by the Constitution (i.e.; the Commerce
Clause), or when the State law violates either the equal protection or due
process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Second, for the umpteenth time, the US Constitution does not guarantee life
or the pursuit of happiness. You are (again) confusing the Declaration of
Independance with the U.S. Constitution. Our forefathers did not guarantee
that you would be happy. They also did not guarantee nor prohibit you from
deciding how your life would end. They left that to the States to decide,
as they did most things dealing with classic "police powers" of the State
(which interestly enough, have little actually to do with "police" as we use
the term today).
<snip>
quote:
> 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).
Perhaps your feelings of guilt are clouding your judgment. You should have
refused if you felt you were committing murder and reported the physician.
If your relatives can, on their own, set aside your living will, donor card,
DNR or other end-of-life decision in your state, then it is too bad that the
State does not trust it's citizens to make the most important and most
personal decisions about their own lives. I suspect that actually, you're
somewhat mistaken, and some burden of proof is involved in showing that the
person didn't really mean it, weren't competent when they made the decision,
or expressed an intention to set aside that decision.
quote:
> 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.
Which is why, uniformly, people seeking advise about living wills and end of
life care are advised to make the decision now, while they are able to
consider it, reach a decision, and express their wishes.
I am interested, however, by the statement "it did not matter to her either
way at the point she was at [before she died]."
You suggest that she was not concious; not able to "cogito". This seems
contrary to the typical assertion that she was actually conscious but not
able to express it. Do you think she was able to form thoughts, to ponder
her own existance, to be aware of her surroundings?
Given your background, you might also want to look at the CT scan on the
abstract appeal web site I provided. There is a "normal" one for comparison
as well somewhere. If I remember correctly, denser areas (like bone) should
show up lighter colored, the denser they are the lighter they appear (bone
is white, tissue such as brain tissue showing up somewhat grey) and liquid
or air showing black. If your thoughts are that she did not have the
ability to think, I would have to say in my layman's opinion that I believe
the CT scan would support that conclusion.
quote:
>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.
She was not "killed" because she was "defective". She stated on more than
one occassion to more than one person that she would not want to live under
these circumstances (again, please read the findings of fact in the order).
The court heard the evidence and believed those that said she expressed an
opinion. The court found the other witnesses to be biased and not
believable. The court's reasons for those conclusions are set forth in the
opinion that I linked. If you don't agree, then fine. But don't claim the
decision was based on the judge deciding she was "defective." That is just
dishonest (assuming you actually read the opinion... It may be that you
haven't and simply don't know what the ruling was based on or the findings
with regard to credibility of the witnesses).
Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that you believe that she
may have changed her mind... She also may not have. The Court heard all
the evidence that either side produced on those issues and made a legal
decision. What if she didn't change her mind? Which is the stronger claim,
her right to decide her own fate (while she was still able) or your right to
feel that you are keeping her brain stem functioning as long as possible?
quote:
> 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.
No, I do not want to see human flesh on the menu at my local fast food
joint. What I do want is for people to allow their fellow citizens to
exercise the right to decide, in advance and while they are still able, what
conditions under which they are willing to continue their life (a right
which the legislature has provided and under the procedures allowed by the
legislature and the courts) and not use it as a political football.
quote:
> 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.
These are the laws that were applied. Again, read the order (oh, come on,
confess, you haven't read either the order or the report of the GAL, have
you?)
As for "You and I know what I am referring to- others reading this may
wonder about it." Actually, I don't have the slightest idea what you are so
secretively referring to...
As I've said before. You are never going to change your mind and I am not
interested in trying to change it. I do think that your inaccurate factual
and legal claims should (at least on occassion) be balanced with the truth.
I have previously invited rational discussion and debate on the important
issues this case raises. That invitation was ignored. I will not engage in
an emotional, irresponsible argument that is not based on either philosophy,
law or (God forbid) the actual facts of the case as elicited at the trial,
with you or anyone else. I will point out (about a tenth of the time) when
you are so completely mistaken about the law or facts that your errors
affect me like fingernails on a blackboard. That is for the edification of
others so that they are at least exposed to the actual facts and law, rather
than your naked and erroneous assertions.
Lastly there is one final reason not to argue with you about the rest of
your comments. There is simply a point at which it is not only an
unproductive waste of time, but also a point at which people might no longer
be able to tell the difference.
I don't doubt that you "feel secure". That doesn't make you correct. The
facts and the law are as I have stated them and I have provided the
references. You feel differently. Go ahead. Scream, yell, rage at the
unfairness of it all. Join the club. Most people feel the government acts
unfairly in some way or another at various times in their lives. Usually,
it is when they are on the losing side in a court battle (or and election,
for that matter). In that case, (a) don't live in Florida, (b) elect
better legislators in your own state, and (c) make your wishes well known
through living wills, DNR orders, etcetera that are communicated to all
branches of the family. The courts genuinely want you to have your wishes
granted in this regard. This is an object lesson to *all* of the dangers
(and the irretrievable harm you cause to your family - not you in
particular, Stocky, but a generic "you" meaning all of us) if you do not
take these simple steps. The time to discuss and even debate the morality
and ethics of this decision is with your family and while you are still
conscious and coherent enough to do so, not for them to debate it angrily
and without you when you are no longer able to give any instructions.
|