Judge Voids Law Keeping Fla. Woman Alive

[Reilly]

Originally posted by krisy
Don't worry about it Reilly,we all get hyped up about what we believe. I don't know that he did anything,I just strongly disagree with his choice to "pull the plug". Sorry if I was a little cocky,I really am a nice person

We're cool. I am sure that you are a nice person, and thanks for talking. I am going to get some sleep now. Good night.

 

[acludem]

Living wills are generally respected by physicians and by the courts. Generally, the only way they are voided is if it can be proven, like with a regular will, that the person who signed it was not of sound mind, but you are correct they are not legally binding. I agree, this case certainly makes clear the need to not only have a living will but to make sure that ALL family members know what your wishes are.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
Living wills are generally respected by physicians and by the courts. Generally, the only way they are voided is if it can be proven, like with a regular will, that the person who signed it was not of sound mind, but you are correct they are not legally binding. I agree, this case certainly makes clear the need to not only have a living will but to make sure that ALL family members know what your wishes are.

acludem

The problem with this is that her accident happened at a relatively young age when most people arent thinking of dying. So i don't think anyone would have thought to write a will at that age. Its just a sad story.

 

[jcon96]

The husband said he would do without the insurance money, or any compensation if she is unhooked. The woman has been gone for years, yet there are some who would allow her to continue to not be there, the husband to continue to pay the bills and the family to torment the husband, all in the name of misguided compassion. I lived in Tampa before moving to West Palm, anf am familiar with this issue. Attempts have been made to teach her to feed herself, and so far, no results. At the last I knew, she respond at a reflex level to light, heat and touch, and that is it. To me that is not living. What I have read in this thread sounds more like tabloid stories than informed opinion.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by acludem
Living wills are generally respected by physicians and by the courts. Generally, the only way they are voided is if it can be proven, like with a regular will, that the person who signed it was not of sound mind, but you are correct they are not legally binding. I agree, this case certainly makes clear the need to not only have a living will but to make sure that ALL family members know what your wishes are.

acludem

While my father had no living will, the issue had been thoroughly discussed amongst us all while he was still alive. He died with dignity, in peace, and with the whole family around him...at peace with the decision to withdraw life support.

It takes a level of courage to let go in such situations that many people never find in themselves. It also requires the understanding that a life well lived, by all the members of a family, will assure a good and peaceful death, when that time comes, for a loved one.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
This could be Terry Schaivo's case, but it's not. Your judgement of Mr. Schaivo only shoes how ignorant you truly are of the dynamics of such cases. Ms. Schaivo's parents could be the selfish ones here. Clinging vainly to a life which no longer is, for reasons known only to them. Afraid of "playing God" by removing her from life support, when in fact that is what they are doing...Playing God. Where it not for artificial measures, she would have passed long ago, with a modicum of dignity. But no...Terry Schaivo's family, both her parents and her husband are being wrenched back and forth by misguided and ignorant politicians...As if the emotional strain of Ms. Schaivo's condition isn't already enough. If Ms. Schaivo was going to "get better" , she would have done so by now.

There comes a time when one must let go of a loved one, no matter how painful it may be. Failing to do so will only cause greater pain for the family and the loved one. One's death should be a time of peace and reflection for the family. A time to remember and celebrate the good times. A time to reconcile and forgive for the bad. To turn it into a legal and political circus is a poignant and painful tragedy. [/B]

Bully, I agree that there comes a time when one must make the decision to pull the plug. A lady at our church had a baby that was born with only the stem of its brain developed. It had to be on life support, or else it would die. After a couple of weeks, the pastor talked with the parents and told them that it would be OK to end life support, and so they did. It was certainly painful, but understandable.

From everything I've seen in the media about Terry Schaivo, this is not the case. There have been no attempts at rehabilitation, so one cannot say that "she should have gotten better by now." And her husband's utter lack of compassion or willingness to put her into rehabilitation speaks volumes about his motives.

 

[acludem]

My grandmother had a living will. When she stopped breathing, no CPR was performed. She was allowed to go. That is what she wanted and her wishes were respected. My parents both have living wills with much the same wishes. As painful as it would be for me to lose either of them, I can't be selfish. I can't deny them their right to die rather than be kept alive by artificial means.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

So what exactly is about this law that makes it unconstitutional?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The point here is that she will not die if the feeding tube is removed. She can be taught to eat, but they have never let that happen. Why? Because Michael has connections with the medical facilities she resides in. He has refused to let her TRY to live based on what he says are her wishes. This makes the whole case clean cut murder.

-Oh.

What caused her to be this way?

There was a criminal trial for attempted murder AGAINST MICHAEL. The judge suspended it indefinitely until this particular issue was resolved.

Guess who the star piece of evidence is?

Sorry, but people in persistent vegetative states don't come out of them. The only certainty is that they will experience sever physical pain for the rest of there lives, with absolutely no conscious idea of what's going on around them and in fact, no conscious thought at all.

But if her husband IS guilty of attempted murder of his wife, I think he ought go to jail for it. Thing is, if I was in his situation, I'd want to keep her on the life support, because as soon as you take her off and she dies, you become guilty of murder and not just attempted murder.

 

[mattskramer]

Being a moderate libertarian, I support the right for an individual of sound mind to kill himself if he so choose. I also support the right for an individual of sound mind to call on others to kill him if he so chooses (Euthanasia). Thirdly, I support "living will" - a document written by someone still legally capable requesting that they should be allowed to die if subsequently severely disabled or suffering terminal illness. The "sticky" issue for me is when the desire of the individual is not known - when there is no "living will" giving instruction in a possible future circumstance when the individual can't communicate a desire to others. Does the Fla woman want to live? Does she want to die? Does she know what she wants? Does she want anything? I think that this is a tough call.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Being a moderate libertarian, I support the right for an individual of sound mind to kill himself if he so choose. I also support the right for an individual of sound mind to call on others to kill him if he so chooses (Euthanasia). Thirdly, I support "living will" - a document written by someone still legally capable requesting that they should be allowed to die if subsequently severely disabled or suffering terminal illness. The "sticky" issue for me is when the desire of the individual is not known - when there is no "living will" giving instruction in a possible future circumstance when the individual can't communicate a desire to others. Does the Fla woman want to live? Does she want to die? Does she know what she wants? Does she want anything? I think that this is a tough call.

I believe that's the core of the debate, essentially, what does she want? Apparently no one knows for sure.


I notice you're a libertarian. I've voted libertarian on many occassions, as out of the dems, the reps, and themselves, they most closely represent my views. I prefer to vote green party, but those guys never have anyone running where I'm from. Who are the libertarians running for President this year? Is it Harry Brown again?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
Nobody knows the full facts (how he feels, etc.) but, presumably, Mr. Shiave. That's it. Nobody knows.

NO.

-YOU don't know. Don't spread your presumption of ignorance on everyone esle. As I said, you haven't even looked into it. I know far more that you do becasue I read. You can't even read my post, and then try to insult everyone. Talk about compassion? We are talking about a clear cut case of murder here if you even look at 3% of the evidence. -Since you have not, you are making the situation worse.

Since it could be YOU in that bed, the problem is much bigger than only one person as the whole issue is a nationwide legal one when the Constitution provides you a right TO LIFE and here people are taking it away by government assistance and corruption. Get a clue jackass. You are advocating ignorance and murder so someone won't feel guilty about their actions.

You are a Bible thumper. Shouldn't compassion come more easily to you?

It has come plenty easy. If I was any less compassionate I would have flamed you up and down for justifying murder and people ignoring it just so a guy doesn't feel guilty. Since you know nothing about the Bible, don't lecture me on anything contained therein. Jesus was compassionate until the money changers were doing their business in the temple. Once you learn that bit within CONTEXT, comeback and we will have this discussion again.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
Sorry, but people in persistent vegetative states don't come out of them. The only certainty is that they will experience sever physical pain for the rest of there lives, with absolutely no conscious idea of what's going on around them and in fact, no conscious thought at all.

Which is why the definition doesn't apply, as she does not fit that description. Hence, the whole case on this one point is a fraud.

But if her husband IS guilty of attempted murder of his wife, I think he ought go to jail for it. Thing is, if I was in his situation, I'd want to keep her on the life support, because as soon as you take her off and she dies, you become guilty of murder and not just attempted murder.

She is the only evidence. If she dies, he is scott free. In addition, he can take the money and run.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by SpidermanTuba
I believe that's the core of the debate, essentially, what does she want? Apparently no one knows for sure.

The American Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

It doesn't matter if she wants to die. She is bound by our documents to live.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
The American Declaration of Independence



It doesn't matter if she wants to die. She is bound by our documents to live.

so your belief is that the statement provided by you commands, or binds, us all to have to live?

 

[Reilly]

Originally posted by NewGuy
NO.

-YOU don't know. Don't spread your presumption of ignorance on everyone esle. As I said, you haven't even looked into it. I know far more that you do becasue I read. You can't even read my post, and then try to insult everyone. Talk about compassion? We are talking about a clear cut case of murder here if you even look at 3% of the evidence. -Since you have not, you are making the situation worse.

Since it could be YOU in that bed, the problem is much bigger than only one person as the whole issue is a nationwide legal one when the Constitution provides you a right TO LIFE and here people are taking it away by government assistance and corruption. Get a clue jackass. You are advocating ignorance and murder so someone won't feel guilty about their actions.

You are a buffoon. I shouldn't need to elaborate on that, but I will.

1. The case is basically one of competing experts. I personally don't know if Ms. Shiave is in a persistent vegative state (or something similar) and can recover. Apparently, some experts believe that she will never recover, and successive courts have adopted their opinions as credible. If it were as clear cut as you say, I doubt this would have happened. Perhaps you should look at more than just 3% of the evidence.

2. The recoverability of Ms. Shiave is irrelevant to my point, which is that you should not be such a jackass in slandering and imputing motivations and actions (Mr. Shiave is about to be prosecuted for attempted murder for actions that resulted in her present condition?) of Mr. Shiave. If you disagree with him on the facts, or legally, or think that he really doesn't speak for his wife's wishes, fine. However, neither you, nor myself, nor anyone else on this board (likely) really knows how much Mr. Shiave loves his wife, and exactly why he is doing what he is doing. We only have his word for how he feels.

3. I do presume that everyone is ignorant in at least some respect, and that in other respects, everyone is ignorant. I realize that you are going to come back at me with some witty insult here, but there is nothing shameful about not knowing. Most people realize this. The fact that you don't explains a lot about your level of obstinance.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
so your belief is that the statement provided by you commands, or binds, us all to have to live?

We have a right to life, and not a right to death.

Murder is illegal.

What would be the logical conclusion based on these two facts alone?

Suicide can be defined as death, the method a sub-issue.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by NewGuy
We have a right to life, and not a right to death.

Murder is illegal.

What would be the logical conclusion based on these two facts alone?

Suicide can be defined as death, the method a sub-issue.

the logical conclusion, at least in my mind, is that no other body, entity, or person has the right to infringe on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether an individual chooses his life, or his death, is irrelevant becaust thats his right of liberty.

suicide IS defined as death by ones own hand and its only by the influence of the religious groups that have made suicide illegal in most states.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Reilly
You are a buffoon. I shouldn't need to elaborate on that, but I will.

Good luck.

1. The case is basically one of competing experts. I personally don't know if Ms. Shiave is in a persistent vegative state (or something similar) and can recover. Apparently, some experts believe that she will never recover, and successive courts have adopted their opinions as credible.

POP QUIZ:

1. what relation do these "experts" have to him?
2. do the definitions of their diagnoses fit the patient?
3. have the judges acted legally or illegally in doing so?

Don't make assumptions based on things you know nothing about.

If it were as clear cut as you say, I doubt this would have happened.

Faith in the system over the facts? -And you call ME a buffoon?

Perhaps you should look at more than just 3% of the evidence.

Perhaps you ought to look at ANY of the evidence.

2. The recoverability of Ms. Shiave is irrelevant to my point, which is that you should not be such a jackass in slandering and imputing motivations and actions

It is NOT irrelevant, as they define her to be on life support which she IS NOT. They declaire her to be vegetative which she IS NOT.

Define slander yourself smart guy. Here is help: www.dictionary.com

(Mr. Shiave is about to be prosecuted for attempted murder for actions that resulted in her present condition?) of Mr. Shiave. If you disagree with him on the facts, or legally, or think that he really doesn't speak for his wife's wishes, fine.

You can't even spell the name right. You really ought to look at the facts. If you did, you wouldn't make such dumb mistakes.

However, neither you, nor myself, nor anyone else on this board (likely) really knows how much Mr. Shiave loves his wife, and exactly why he is doing what he is doing. We only have his word for how he feels.

Yeah. Even if all of his statements contradict factual medical, video, scientific, and legal stipulations? How the heck can YOU know anything when you can't spell the NAME right, haven't looked at ANY of the evidence, criticize others for wanting justice, and advocate murder for someone elses wishes which have not even been proven?

3. I do presume that everyone is ignorant in at least some respect, and that in other respects, everyone is ignorant.

Want a clue which category you have just dropped yourself into?

I realize that you are going to come back at me with some witty insult here,

Like you have with me from post 1?

but there is nothing shameful about not knowing. Most people realize this. The fact that you don't explains a lot about your level of obstinance.

There is EVERYTHING shameful about trying to silence justice, morallity and the opposing view when you have no information.

The fact YOU don't know this explains your level of offensiveness and incompetent argument.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
the logical conclusion, at least in my mind, is that no other body, entity, or person has the right to infringe on your right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether an individual chooses his life, or his death, is irrelevant becaust thats his right of liberty.

suicide IS defined as death by ones own hand and its only by the influence of the religious groups that have made suicide illegal in most states.

Ok. Given that we take away the supposed religious influence, and have no law about suicide, murder would still be illegal then.

We have no stipulation of any kind left then about suicide.

Assuming it to be completely allowed, (which I cannot logically find any justification for according to intent, not wording of any legal original founding documents), we would then need proof, right?

There is NOT one shred of proof of what she wanted.

There is only another person's opinion.

Given no proof, and the other person's opinion is not proof, and everyone is entitled to life, then what would the logical conclusion be?