If in fact she did not wish to live in such a condition then dying would be in her best interest, right? It's what she would have wanted. Always assuming that she was in fact in such a condition.
I don't think nobody should ever decide for another person. Clearly, when a patient is incapacitated, this is often necessary. What I am struggling with is the following. Suppose this woman was curable, suppose she wanted to live. Clearly if one or another of these statements is true then a great wrong was done. So how do you prevent another one, or prevent the first one if neither of these statements is true? Because I don't think anyone wants to do this to someone who does not want it done or who could get better and live to speak for themselves about their wishes. The struggle is to define a standard that would prevent this without legislating medical care. Because I don't want COngress telling me I have to take chemo, or have my leg amputated or whatever any more than anyone else. I don't claim to have an answer but I really do think there is a question. Dana On Apr 8, 2005 12:16 AM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > where there is sufficient evidence to the contrary. In my opinion this > > shoud have happened in this case, but did not because Michael Schiavo > > and Judge Greer had agreed that dying was in Terry Schiavo's best > > interest, and he refused to evaluate evidence to the contrary. > > > > It's funny because I always totally agree with you up until your > conclusion. It was not that they decided "dying would be in her best > interest" - it was that Judge Greer ruled that the law says it was Mr. > Schiavo's choice on whether Mrs. Schiavo would refuse treatment at > that point in her case. > > If I take your argument to its end, it's: under no circumstances > should any person be able to refuse treatment for another person. I > fundamentally disagree with that. > > Also you keep saying "he refused to hear ..." I've talked to judges > about this and heard from witnesses in the court who all independently > said Judge Greer did hear the testimony, but didn't feel the source > was credible. > > That makes perfect sense because to this day you have some doctors > saying, "no competent neurologist would say this woman is in anything > else but in a PVS." You have others saying she's not. As a judge you > have to decide who you believe - he chose to believe the former. > > As to the conspiracy theories and the "appelate courts didn't see the > evidence" argument, the FL courts did decide to review the evidence, > but still sided with Judge Greer. The Federal courts saw no wrong > doing. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153155 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
