Maybe we *should* define issues. Cause those aren't the ones I see. First of all, that was not bait. There seems to be some sort of idea floating around that this woman is being artificially kept alive. This "feeding tube"? The technical name is gastostomy. As mentioned, my great-aunt just got one and will go back to living by herself within a week, probably. We're going to have to keep a better eye on her to make sure she is eating, but it will be easier to remedy now if she isn't.
So, issue #1. When does it become a crime to give a woman with brain damage something to drink? And most of all, *why*? There are indeed legitimate privacy issues. These assume that Michael Schiavo is acting in good faith, but let's look at it that way for a seocnd, for the sake of the argument. If he truly believes he is acting in her best interest, it is possible that he is. But, let's remember that the woman who drowned her four children thought she was doing them a favor also. A family's right to privacy, while important, is not absolute. I am not sure why payment is even an issue here. Michael Schiavo is not paying the bill at the moment; the hospice is. Her parents are willing to take the expenses on. So this argument would seem to work against you, even if it were not somewhat offensive to debate the value of a life that seems relatively content. Let's review for a second. We're talking about someone receiving nothing but palliative care for almost eight years. If nothing else, advances in medical science would argue that someone take another look. Dana On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:34:19 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > Nor, in my opinion, is she being kept artificially alive at this > > point. My 87-year-old great-aunt just had the very same procedure > > (gastrostomy) and will be sent home to live independently, though due > > to her advanced age we're planning on getting her a housekeeper and > > some visiting nurses. > > > > :: attempts to resists bait ... :: > :: takes bait :: > > I think we're confusing 2 issues: > > 1.) When a married spouse cannot speak for themselves, who should > speak for them and under what circumstances? > > 2.) For people in a PVS in need of extreme care, who should pay? > > In the first case I think everyone would agree that the clear answer > is the spouse. If the counter argument is, "but many are ignorant of > the law" that shouldn't be acceptable, i.e., too bad. One thing that > could be done to shore this up is to require that each marriage > applicant sign that they'd read and understood the legal implications > of marriage. Without it though, ignorance of the law is no excuse. > > The next question is, if the spouse is deemed the guardian, should the > state be able to override those rights and, if so, when? My opinion > is no since I believe in freedom and liberty which is to say that I > like a weak federal government. > > For the second point, this is more tricky. If the spouse is unable to > pay for the care should the patient become a ward of the state? If > so, what rights does the spouse retain? This is a similar issue to > elderly married couples that have to divorce in order to qualify for > help from the state. A bit more tricky here. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Sams Teach Yourself Regular Expressions in 10 Minutes by Ben Forta http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=40 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150994 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
