Keith Devens .com

Sickening? LOL, I found Michael Schiavo's interview to be very informative.

BTW, ad hominem ("sickening", "asshat") isn't effective arguing. Reminds me of my dealings with lefties.

isn't effective arguing...

You're right of course, though I don't know why you thought I was arguing at all. First, the "sickening" wasn't mine -- I didn't even see the Larry King interview. "Asshat", in case you're not familiar with the word, is a sign of contempt, and shows that I don't think the person is even worth arguing with

Reminds me of my dealings with lefties.

You, sir, have insulted my honor! I demand satisfaction!

I'm just waiting for you to bring up States' Rights on this matter, seeing as how the US Congress has attempted to quash a decision by a state's judiciary.

Or that Bush, as Governor of Texas, signed through legislation in the form of the Futile Care Law that, had something similar been instituted federally before this nonsense started, would mean that it would have been the hospital and not her husband taking her off of what is essentially life support. So what about all those people in a similar state now and in the past who've been taken off of life support of some kind and left to die just because there wasn't any money? That's not to say that I either agree or disagree with the legislation he signed in back then, just that I find the hypocracy of his current position rather palpable.

Now, if I was in her state, I'd prefer to be let die. I'd also prefer to be euthanised than be left like that. Starving to death isn't pretty. Beyond recovery is as good as death, especially when the individual is that severely brain damaged. I've been around people like that. However, I don't think I could make that choice for somebody else. However, this kind of a case is probably one of the few legitimate arguments in favour of limited euthanasia there is.

Wow, I didn't think that'd turn into an advocation of limited euthanasia! Where did that come from?

The Congress didn't try to "quash" anything. AFAIK, what they did was Constitutional -- they voted to have the case be reviewed under federal jurisdiction. One may argue that it was inadvisable to write a law not on general principle but for a specific case, but that's a separate argument. But given the state courts' obvious dereliction of duty here, I'd say I support Congress' action. I just wish the federal courts had actually reviewed the case as they were supposed to. I just read this post by Matt Wretchard and figure it's worth linking here.

As for the Futile Care Law, there's no way I'm reading through that thing to find out what it really says. Maybe if I remember I'll do research later when I have time. I probably wouldn't consider it relevant, however, as I don't believe treating Terri -- she's never really been given any rehab... her husband's always prevented it (evil son of a bitch) -- would be futile care.

As for limited euthanasia, I can at least say that I'd rather she'd been given a lethal injection than that she die a slow painful death from starvation. At least then she'd have been afforded some of the care we give to even our pets. But, this way they get to believe they're not really murdering her, just "letting her die".

I didn't say that they did quash it, I said that what they did was essentially interfering with State's Rights. This is a matter for Florida and Florida alone.

The Futile Care Law boils down to this: a medical institution must revoke care to a patient where there are insufficent funds forthcoming from the patient or those charged with supporting them or if the medical institution believes that there is no chance of recovery. If care is revoked, the patient must be found somewhere else that is willing to take care of them. If somewhere can be found, they live. If not, they're left to die.

On rehab, I can't see what rehab she can be given. Remember that her higher cognitive functions has been destroyed, leaving her at best an automation.

And I'm glad you agree with my sentiments on limited euthanasia in such cases. While I don't think this is murder any more than the Futile Care Law is murder, I find the idea of leaving somebody to die, whether fully cognitive, vegetative, or completely braindead, through starvation is just wrong, just as desecrating somebody's corpse is wrong.