PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - A state judge on Friday temporarily blocked the removal of the feeding tube for severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo as legal wrangling continued over efforts by congressional Republicans to keep her alive.You know these nutbags really don't give a shit about this poor woman. It's just a political cause to them. It's a well publicized case and they just want to be part of the excitement. There are thousands of people in this country who could actually benefit from another person's care and attention. The BSC's can't be bothered with them.
Pinellas Circuit Court Chief Judge David Demers ordered that the feeding tube remain in place past a 1 p.m. deadline while fellow Judge George Greer, who is presiding over the Schiavo case, deals with conflicting legal issues.
"The family is prayerfully excited about their daughter going before the United States Congress for the whole world to see how alive she is."Holy fuck these people are just sick. Prayerfully excited? They're going to parade a person in a persistent vegetative state in front of Congress?
How many people died in Iraq today? Does Congress give a fuck about that? Do the right wing freaks give a fuck about it?
"What can wash away our sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus," they sang.
** update **
Somebody left this in comments:
Filling out a health care proxy should be mandatory when you turn 18. Then messes like these would never happen.It's a thought, but not an especially good one. It would be an administrative nightmare to implement and enforce. It's also irrelevant.
This is not a "mess" in the sense that the law is clear. Mr. Schiavo is solely responsible for determining the disposition of his wife under the law. Period. All of the other injunctions and Congress stepping in is just a huge side show that they should be ashamed over.
You do NOT implement other administrative bureaucracies to prevent people from going fucking nuts when the law is already absolutely 100% clear.
Can I say that enough? The law is clear on who makes the decision.
One more time.. the law says Mr. Schiavo makes the decision. He has won every single court review so far...
You know.. it's Mr. Shiavo who the law says should decide this..
So.. get fucking outraged at the Christian freaks, and Republican's in Congress who are turning this into a big pile of shit.. Okay? Don't go proposing more government intervention. That's a really fucking stupid idea.
God.. this pisses me off... let the woman die with dignity already.
** Update 2 **
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - The presiding judge in the case of Terri Schiavo ruled Friday that the feeding tube keeping the brain-damaged woman alive must be removed, despite efforts by congressional Republicans to block the move by seeking her appearance at hearings.This is truly very sad. This woman died years ago when her heart stopped, destroying her brain. What is there now is not Terri Schiavo. It would be nice if all publicity in this matter be stopped, and the law followed. It would be better if the story was who she was, not all of this mess...
"I have had no cogent reason why the (congressional) committee should intervene," Greer told attorneys in a conference call, adding that last-minute action by Congress does not invalidate years of court rulings.
5 comments:
Yes, I've followed this for over a year and I'm aware of the extenuating circumstances you refer to. In terms of law, those circumstances are irrelevant of course.
I respect how you factor in side issues, such as motive. But, of course, it is completely irrelevant. The law does not state "the spouse will make the decision unless it looks like the spouse is attempting to profit by the situation, in which case deference will be given to the parents".
Do you see what I mean? You are conditionalizing a situation that is very cut and dried. The law says the spouse makes the decision. All of those other arguments are extraneous and irrelevant.
If we used your method of jurisprudence, could you imagine the chaos that would ensue when trying to give judgment to extraneous issues?
Again, I respect your moral indignation in terms of how you perceive the husband. I'm just really perplexed why you let that emotional reaction affect your judgement and interpretation of a very clear issue - law.
I don't think you'd make a very good engineer because you can't seperate concepts in a non-emotional way.
Now... tell the truth. This is not about the husband being greedy to you, right? This is about a political agenda, a "Christian" agenda, a Republican agenda. Isn't that true?
As for your argument that this will lead to euthanizing senior citizens, I’m reminded of Rick Santorum’s famous “man on dog” slippery slope argument opposing gay marriage.
One thing has nothing to do with the other and you know it. You sometimes make decent arguments, but that has to be the silliest I’ve seen from you yet. I’m just going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were joking there.
It's not an effort to kill her. Holy cow do you not realize that she has been judged to be in a persistent vegetative state, and requires intervention to keep her alive?
Did you not read anything I wrote? Do you realize what the consequences are for your moral interpretation of a cut-and-dried legal matter?
In addition, this situation is not unique. Every day in this country people are disconnected from life supporting measures.
In fact, one of my good friends made this same decision for his mother who had suffered a stroke. The could breath on her own but had severed brain damage. They disconnected fluids and she dehydrated until she died.
Very sad, yes, but that's life sometimes. But let me ask you, since her son (my friend) stood to inherit a substaintial amount of money, should the government have reviewed the case to make sure his decision was not based on greed? Should the government had the authority to over rule his decision and keep his mother on life support indefinately?
Does that make any sense to you at all?
A feeding tube is NOT an "intervention" like a ventilator. Being starved to death is not humane. End of story. Try reading up on the actual physical realitys of starving to death, its painful, and horrible. I doubt that Ms. Schiavo would choose this.
I really wish people would read what I write..
She will not "starve to death". She will dehydrate until her organs shut down and her heart stops.
Feeding tubes for an unconsious and brain damaged person is life support. Duh. The law is quite clear on this issue. Apparently you want to grind your jack boot all over the husband in this case, because he is clearly acting within the law as every court has ruled.
You ignored the analogy I drew to my friends mother. Would you have had the state force feed that a stroke victim until she had a "natural death", despite the wishes of her son? Answer the damn question.
Your argument is so illogical it makes my head spin. Don't give me that "end of story" bullshit. That's typical "I'm taking my toys and going home" bullshit.
Oh.. and she's in a persistent vegetative state. She does not respond to pain stimuli.
And who really cares what YOU WOULD DOUBT Terri would want? I swear..
It's about what her LEGAL voice wants, in the abscence of a living will.
Who cares what YOU want for her?
Post a Comment