forced suicide

The husband is trying to keep the father and mother out of the room where they are killing Terri. They have already arrested some people who were trying to bring her water.

 

Her parents are no longer her next of kin, her husband is, he has more legal rights then they do, even though he is tring to kill her. And you can not just walk in and insert a feeding tube, it has to be done right or it can cause damage. Plus it is a medical procedure, only qualified medical persons can do it. Her parents are doing the very best thing they can, fighting him legally in the courts, it's just that they got that bun judge who obviously does not care about human life, or that the husband is suspect.

 

There are at least 3 threads on this topic down in the Current Events forum.

 

Her husband? This guy is shacked up with another woman even though he is still legally married to Terri. Terri's parents are the ones who still love her. Give them guardianship.
Ok, I won't post any more about this as it makes my blood boil!

 

I suspect that the judges involved in this case know a whole lot more about the issue than anyone in this thread does. Unless someone has read all of the court transcripts on this case and has yet additional knowledge of the case, I believe that they should mind their own business and let the courts do their job.

 

I disagree Craig.

This is a free society and we have the baisc right of free expression and don't have to "mind our own business".

The Terry Schiavo episode involes the basic rights expressed in the documents of the founding fathers and affects everyone of us no matter which side of this issue we take.

HankD

 

Are you serious Craig?

I think that Terri's parents know a lot more about the situation than any of the judges and yet the disagree. BTW, the ACLU is on the side of the husband. That is enough for me to be on the side of the parents.

There is not much we can do, but it is truly sad and as I explain the issue to my children I don't say to them ..."I believe that they should mind their own business and let the courts do their job."

 

Simply put;
That monster who calls himself a man is killing a disabled lady for his own convenience.

And yet! We have people today who will say that the atrocities of Hitler's Germany can never happen today?

When ANY society WILL NOT defend its most helpless citizens, THAT society is not long for this earth.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Quoted bt Craigbythesea: Unless someone has read all of the court transcripts on this case and has yet additional knowledge of the case, I believe that they should mind their own business and let the courts do their job.

You posted on another thread that you wished Christians would mind their own business.

When you are ill and on "comfort measures" in a hospital, mabey we will!

 

As World War Two began to "dawn" upon the inhabitants of Germany---Heir Furher decided that he needed hospital room for troops that would be wounded in battle----sooooooo, nursing homes in Germany began to "mysteriously" loose patients. Nursing home patients just "disappeared"----Children would go to the Nursing Homes to visit their parent patient---to find the room empty! When they probed to the whereabouts of their parents---they were told to "mind your own business."

It took a World War to wake Germany up to the perverted minds of Hitler and Himmler!!!

What will it take us----when lives are held in the grip of a so called Supreme Court!! Since when do we "mind our own business" when we have a Supreme Court who can't find their butts with both their hands??????????? God help uus!!! GOD HELP US!!!!!

Brother David

 

This is President Bush's real position.

***********************************************

Law Bush signed prompts cries of hypocrisy
Mon, Mar. 21, 2005
By William Douglas
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The federal law that President Bush signed early Monday in an effort to prolong Terri Schiavo's life appears to contradict a right-to-die law that he signed as Texas governor, prompting cries of hypocrisy from congressional Democrats and some bioethicists.
In 1999, then-Gov. Bush signed the Advance Directives Act, which lets a patient's surrogate make life-ending decisions on his or her behalf. The measure also allows Texas hospitals to disconnect patients from life-sustaining systems if a physician, in consultation with a hospital bioethics committee, concludes that the patient's condition is hopeless.
Bioethicists familiar with the Texas law said Monday that if the Schiavo case had occurred in Texas, her husband would be the legal decision-maker and, because he and her doctors agreed that she had no hope of recovery, her feeding tube would be disconnected.
"The Texas law signed in 1999 allowed next of kin to decide what the patient wanted, if competent," said John Robertson, a University of Texas bioethicist.
While Congress and the White House were considering legislation recently in the Schiavo case, Bush's Texas law faced its first high-profile test. With the permission of a judge, a Houston hospital disconnected a critically ill infant from his breathing tube last week against his mother's wishes after doctors determined that continuing life support would be futile.
"The mother down in Texas must be reading the Schiavo case and scratching her head," said Dr. Howard Brody, the director of Michigan State University's Center for Ethics and Humanities in the Life Sciences. "This does appear to be a contradiction."
Brody said that, in taking up the Schiavo case, Bush and Congress had shattered a body of bioethics law and practice.
"This is crazy. It's political grandstanding," he said.
Bush's apparent shift on right-to-die decisions wasn't lost on Democrats. During heated debate on the Schiavo case, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla., accused Bush of hypocrisy.
"It appears that President Bush felt, as governor, that there was a point which, when doctors felt there was no further hope for the patient, that it is appropriate for an end-of-life decision to be made, even over the objection of family members," Wasserman Schultz said. "There is an obvious conflict here between the president's feelings on this matter now as compared to when he was governor of Texas."
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan termed Wasserman Schultz's remarks "uninformed accusations" and denied that there was any conflict in Bush's positions on the two laws.
"The legislation he signed (early Monday) is consistent with his views," McClellan said. "The (1999) legislation he signed into law actually provided new protections for patients ... prior to the passage of the '99 legislation that he signed, there were no protections."
Wasserman Schultz stuck by her remarks when told of McClellan's comments.
"It's a fact in black and white," she said. "It's a direct conflict on the position he has in the Schiavo case."
Tom Mayo, a Southern Methodist University Law School associate professor who helped draft the Texas law, said he saw no inconsistency in Bush's stands.
"It's not really a conflict, because the (Texas) law addresses different types of disputes, meaning the dispute between decision-maker and physician," he said. "The Schiavo case is a disagreement among family members."
Bush himself framed the Schiavo decision this way Monday.
"This is a complex case with serious issues, but in extraordinary circumstances like this, it is wise to always err on the side of life," the president said during a Social Security event in Tucson, Ariz. He didn't mention the 1999 Texas law.