| Stockman91790@yahoo.com 2005-04-12, 6:25 pm |
| ....
quote:
you[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> The decision to forgo treatment is not suicide under the law.
> <snip>
In this case I believe that it may be called physician assisted suicide
by judicial order. If a patient of legal sound mind refuses it that is
acceptable unless it would lead to death. Otherwise a hospital needs to
treat a pt. with the usuall care that is required. If they don't and it
leads to death because basic needs are withheld they are accountable
for negligence.
Of course in this case they were ordered to do it.
quote:
for[vbcol=seagreen]
Federal[vbcol=seagreen]
laws[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Oh, boy, where do I start...
Try starting with the answer to my questions- rhetorically since I
already know the answers.
It is amazing what either isn't covered in
quote:
> civics (or "social studies"), or is forgotten... But I confess, I
couldn't
quote:
> have quoted an obscure (but probably the most important) amendment
like the
quote:
> 10th prior to law school either, so don't feel too bad.
I feel bad but for different reasons than you refer to.
quote:
> First, re-read the 10th amendment. Take a passing glance at the
Commerce
quote:
> Clause as well. This is important and apparently a lot of people
don't know
quote:
> it.
While I confess that I once considered law as a profession, a day
fighting a traffic ticket convinced me that the hipocracy dissuaded me
from it.
quote:
> Federal law does not trump state law, except where specifically
provided in
quote:
> the Constitution. That is the basis of Federalism. The only time
Federal
quote:
> law has any power over state laws is when the issue falls under
federal
quote:
> jurisdiction specifically provided by the Constitution (i.e.; the
Commerce
quote:
> Clause), or when the State law violates either the equal protection
or due
quote:
> process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I disagree with those statements. Without giving examples I can think
of a number of issues where state law was struck down because something
was covered under fed. law. I was taught that states rights are only
the residual of fed. law (fed. laws do trump state laws).
quote:
> Second, for the umpteenth time, the US Constitution does not
guarantee life
quote:
> or the pursuit of happiness. You are (again) confusing the
Declaration of
quote:
> Independance with the U.S. Constitution.
No, I once memorized the dec. of ind. and know the difference. The dec.
of ind. came first and stated our policy and its principles guided the
formation of our const. I am sure our forefathers would roll over if
they knew that our government had a legal right to kill a citizen
because they decided they had lived long enough because of a physical
disability.
Our forefathers did not guarantee
quote:
> that you would be happy. They also did not guarantee nor prohibit
you from
quote:
> deciding how your life would end. They left that to the States to
decide,
quote:
> as they did most things dealing with classic "police powers" of the
State
quote:
> (which interestly enough, have little actually to do with "police" as
we use
quote:
> the term today).
ok- they didn't guarantee anything, but they certainly stated our
rights.
quote:
> <snip>
indicate[vbcol=seagreen]
death[vbcol=seagreen]
for[vbcol=seagreen]
orders[vbcol=seagreen]
legal[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Perhaps your feelings of guilt are clouding your judgment. You
should have
quote:
> refused if you felt you were committing murder and reported the
physician.
Of course our life experiences greatly influence our morality and
judgements. Reported the physician to whom? The hospital? A police
officer? I would have ended my career by doing so and no one would have
cared. They would have "denied" doing it and no one would have backed
me up. There is a point where principles end and reality takes over. It
is common practice, ongoing, and the way things are done in the course
of policy.
quote:
> If your relatives can, on their own, set aside your living will,
donor card,
quote:
> DNR or other end-of-life decision in your state, then it is too bad
that the
quote:
> State does not trust it's citizens to make the most important and
most
quote:
> personal decisions about their own lives. I suspect that actually,
you're
quote:
> somewhat mistaken, and some burden of proof is involved in showing
that the
quote:
> person didn't really mean it, weren't competent when they made the
decision,
quote:
> or expressed an intention to set aside that decision.
>
set[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Which is why, uniformly, people seeking advise about living wills and
end of
quote:
> life care are advised to make the decision now, while they are able
to
quote:
> consider it, reach a decision, and express their wishes.
Yes, that is the way things are done, but once a person dies others can
decide from that point on regardless of wishes.
quote:
> I am interested, however, by the statement "it did not matter to her
either
quote:
> way at the point she was at [before she died]."
> You suggest that she was not concious; not able to "cogito". This
seems
quote:
> contrary to the typical assertion that she was actually conscious but
not
quote:
> able to express it. Do you think she was able to form thoughts, to
ponder
quote:
> her own existance, to be aware of her surroundings?
I do not know and no one else could know. If someone had told her they
were going to kill her she had only facial expressions to indicate how
she felt about it and even that may not have been a good indicator of
her feelings.
She could have been truly trapped in her body, but we just don't know
how or if she felt anything. Does a persons very life depend on their
ability to think? I consider it as a disability and does not deserve a
death sentence because of it. Next we would be killing someone because
of low i.q., low scores on a test, or mental illness. It is not our
policy to kill disabled people.
quote:
> Given your background, you might also want to look at the CT scan on
the
quote:
> abstract appeal web site I provided. There is a "normal" one for
comparison
quote:
> as well somewhere. If I remember correctly, denser areas (like bone)
should
quote:
> show up lighter colored, the denser they are the lighter they appear
(bone
quote:
> is white, tissue such as brain tissue showing up somewhat grey) and
liquid
quote:
> or air showing black. If your thoughts are that she did not have the
quote:
> ability to think, I would have to say in my layman's opinion that I
believe
quote:
> the CT scan would support that conclusion.
I have seen the scans- they showed it on tv. I do believe she lacked
the capacity to think, but again, I don't know either way. Again, does
that deserve a death sentence? If so, be afraid to sleep, because we
may appear to be unaware of our seroundings when we do and subject to
death because of it.
quote:
KILL[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
peoples[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> She was not "killed" because she was "defective". She stated on more
than
quote:
> one occassion to more than one person that she would not want to live
under
quote:
> these circumstances (again, please read the findings of fact in the
order).
I do not believe it and even if true would only be one of the factors
used to decide her fate.
I do not believe that "fact" played a role in it- the real facts are
unknown.
quote:
> The court heard the evidence and believed those that said she
expressed an
quote:
> 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
quote:
> opinion that I linked. If you don't agree, then fine. But don't
claim the
quote:
> decision was based on the judge deciding she was "defective." That
is just
quote:
> dishonest (assuming you actually read the opinion... It may be that
you
quote:
> haven't and simply don't know what the ruling was based on or the
findings
quote:
> with regard to credibility of the witnesses).
I do not agree that a court has the right to issue what is tantamount
to a death sentence for a citizen who has commited no crime. I did not
read the opinion and it does not matter- all the words, decisions, laws
do not give the excuse to kill someone without cause. Yes, I understand
that I am saying in effect " don't confuse me with facts" but the FACT
is that they MURDERED HER- I believe and you bring it up many times,
that she had lived "long enough" because she was not "aware" of
anything. That excuse for murder is because she had a defect- what
other excuse could there be regardless of what the law or findings or
opinion was?
quote:
> Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that you believe that
she
quote:
> may have changed her mind... She also may not have.
Absolutely, but her mindset remained unknown. And again, only a factor
in it.
The Court heard all
quote:
> the evidence that either side produced on those issues and made a
legal
quote:
> decision. What if she didn't change her mind? Which is the stronger
claim,
quote:
> her right to decide her own fate (while she was still able) or your
right to
quote:
> feel that you are keeping her brain stem functioning as long as
possible?
Since it remains unknown either way it should not have been used as a
factor in any decision to keep her alive. You know that there was more
to Terri than her brain stem- there was a working human being in her
body with a defective brain. Arms, legs, body functions, facial
expressions, movement, etc.
quote:
screaming[vbcol=seagreen]
moral[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> No, I do not want to see human flesh on the menu at my local fast
food
quote:
> joint. What I do want is for people to allow their fellow citizens
to
quote:
> exercise the right to decide, in advance and while they are still
able, what
quote:
> conditions under which they are willing to continue their life (a
right
quote:
> which the legislature has provided and under the procedures allowed
by the
quote:
> legislature and the courts) and not use it as a political football.
Then we need a fed. law to cover it. There was one just for Terri- our
whole gov. and pres. stopped what they were doing to protect the life
of one of our citizens and even that wasn't enough to save her. What
you are proposing is the right to suicide- and assisted suicide.
quote:
laws[vbcol=seagreen]
most[vbcol=seagreen]
really[vbcol=seagreen]
this[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> These are the laws that were applied. Again, read the order (oh,
come on,
quote:
> confess, you haven't read either the order or the report of the GAL,
have
quote:
> you?)
I confess, I did not and won't. It would really be a waste of my time
to do it.
We have a right to life and just can not believe our gov. has the right
to kill us in a civil case.
quote:
> As for "You and I know what I am referring to- others reading this
may
quote:
> wonder about it." Actually, I don't have the slightest idea what you
are so
quote:
> secretively referring to...
I am not implying that there is any secret to it- I must have given you
too much credit in understanding my arguments.
quote:
> As I've said before. You are never going to change your mind and I
am not
quote:
> interested in trying to change it. I do think that your inaccurate
factual
quote:
> and legal claims should (at least on occassion) be balanced with the
truth.
The truth is the most important factor in this whole discussion. I will
not change my mind for convenience alone. I believe I stated the facts
accurately. The legal claims are subject to argument and reversals.
quote:
> I have previously invited rational discussion and debate on the
important
quote:
> issues this case raises. That invitation was ignored. I will not
engage in
quote:
> an emotional, irresponsible argument that is not based on either
philosophy,
quote:
> law or (God forbid) the actual facts of the case as elicited at the
trial,
quote:
> with you or anyone else. I will point out (about a tenth of the
time) when
quote:
> you are so completely mistaken about the law or facts that your
errors
quote:
> affect me like fingernails on a blackboard. That is for the
edification of
quote:
> others so that they are at least exposed to the actual facts and law,
rather
quote:
> than your naked and erroneous assertions.
I am honored that such an illustrius person as you would discuss this
with me.
I am dismayed that all of my replys seem to be disregarded by you
though.
My basic assertion is that we have a right to life and you seem to
dispute that and use "law" to do it. The very law has eaten away at our
const. which gives that law. Those "laws" are used to take our life
away and I contend they are invalid. You can rebel against the
principle of protecting our lives but it will not change what our
country stands for.
quote:
> Lastly there is one final reason not to argue with you about the rest
of
quote:
> 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
quote:
> be able to tell the difference.
And conversely so. I am sorry you, yourself do not have an open mind
about this.
Your mindset is on a one tract course of using court decisions to
affect your reasoning rather than real facts. I do not intend that as
an insult to you- only a conclusion I have drawn as your reasons to
disagree with me.
And the humor I see that I am "hard headed"- "physician heal thy self"
should also apply to lawyers.
I have said all I have to say about it also.
This may post 2x because I am not sure it got posted at all.
|