[NGTM-1R]

Let me clarify: you don't really believe they're apolitical, do you?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by ngtm1r
Let me clarify: you don't really believe they're apolitical, do you?

They're human, so of course not.  But that doesn't justify the government overruling them to suit its own political ends; if your judges are halfway competent, then their politics are not an issue.

I'm not overly familiar with the US legal system, but I believe the Supereme Court sits with more than one judge to prevent politically motivated decisions, yes?

In an issue like this, both sides of the debate are politically motivated - and will attack any decision they disagree with as being so, too.  That doesn't make it a correct assumption, though; any decision will in some way match a political side of the arguement.

[NGTM-1R]

True. In fact I think the sitting court might be mostly Republican, though I'd have to check. If they are, they aren't Republican enough to agree to this, and more power to them.

The Supreme Court has tended to rule with its political leanings, despite efforts otherwise in its makeup.

[aldo_14]

According to Wikipedia;
[q]
As of 2005, the United States Supreme Court Justices are:

    * Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
    * Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
    * Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
    * Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
    * Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
    * Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
    * Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
    * Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
    * Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas are generally considered to be conservative. Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens are generally considered to be liberal. Justices Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor are typically seen as moderates, and hence are the swing votes who often decide cases.[/q]

I think Clinton is the only Democrat president on that list, incidentally.  Although changing society and politicals mean that, of course, a judge appointed by one party is constantly adherent to that parties modern policies; in fact, you'd hope not for the sake of proper legal decision making.

[Flipside]

All  I can really say is this, take a look at the UK law system, this is the perfect example of a System that got so obsessed with the 'Emotional' background and 'seeing every side' of the story that it has turned itself into a foam-rubber mallet.

The UK no longer takes it's own laws seriously, our Judges are more concerned about the fact that defendents 'had a bad childhood' than that they mugged a 70 year old woman.

This situation came about, to a large degree, because we did not stick to the letter of our law, we kept making one-off exceptions etc, our own fear of being called -ist about anything, racist, sexist etc, etc, coupled with the European Court, which is like the UN, only with more Bigots.

[Swamp_Thing]

I had yet to give my input on this issue, and i was really wasn´t going to. But now i think i should.
First of all, i am totally all for euthanasia and unplugging this woman´s machines. There is no chance she will ever get better, not in her lifetime, or ours fo that matter. However, it is shocking to see the hipocrisy that rages on. If you disconect the machines, you are virtually killing her. So why on earth do they allow her to starve and suffer?? Why not put her asleep, in a painless manner? Why does she have to suffer more? Yeah, some say she doesn´t feel pain, but for pitty sake get it over with already!!!

Others say that she wasn´t given a right to choose. Well, that is true. But the raw truth is that the majority of the people who find themselfs in simillar situations, and yet still retain the lucidity of mind to vocalize their wishes, would choose to end their lifes instead of living the rest of their lives stuck in a bed looking at the walls. We know this already. I choose so too. So chances are Terry would choose it too had she the brain capacity to vocalize it.
Let´s face it, many people fight with tooth and nails for the life of somebody else, but if they were in the same shoes it´s curious to see how they change their minds about it. When it happens to others, it´s easy to play the "life is precious" advocate. But when it happens to you, when it´s you who have to face the endless pain, both physically, mentally and spiritually, we aren´t that concerned. Who amongst you would be prepared to live your life, year after year, strapped to a bed, your familly abandoned you, your friends gone, and the only confort you have are those few hours of sleep, if you are lucky? Or your daily dose of morphine and other drug cocktails?
I don´t envision Terry making any other choice than ending it all, if she could.
 I agree that she is allowed to die, but i am totally against the method. Doctors aren´t allowed to "ease" her way out, because the law sees that as murder. And yet that same law doesn´t see starving her as torture? Such hipocrisy...

We are the masters of our bodies. we are the master of our lifes. We are allowed to smoke, drink, infect ourselfs with desiese, drug ourselfsf, sell ourselfs for sex, even sell parts of our body,  but we cannot choose to live or die?? Such bull****...

[Liberator]

Yes, but she didn't choose to die.  Her husband chose for her.

As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place) you should be able to figure out a way to take care of it yourself.  You do NOT have the right to make a physician, a person who has dedicated his or her life to saving life, do the job for you.  That is the act of a coward.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
Yes, but she didn't choose to die.  Her husband chose for her.

Which is what makes these cases so controversial; the issue was not her husbands 'choice', however; her husband took the matter to court, and let the court make that decision, based upon not just her husband, but the physicians evidence (from both parties and independently appointed doctors), and also based upon the statements of 3rd parties who knew her.

That's an important distinction; her husband never said 'she wants to die'.  He effectively said 'I believe she would want to die', and the court reviewed the evidence and agreed with that side. Remember this has gone through pretty much every single possible avenue of law to reach this stage; it's scarecely the act of one man acting alone, but the comprehensive conclusion of the  mediatory system provided by the courts.

Originally posted by Liberator

As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place) you should be able to figure out a way to take care of it yourself.  You do NOT have the right to make a physician, a person who has dedicated his or her life to saving life, do the job for you.  That is the act of a coward.

With the issue of euthanasia, you may not be physically capable of ending your own life; the most obvious example being a parapleigic.    

The base of the Hippocratic oath is, IIRc, 'do no harm'; there are cases where a patient can make the arguement that a life of pain is doing harm.  There is also the side issue that the input of a professional medic may be required to make euthanasia as painless as possible.

Imbalance is such a strange term to use.... does living in constant pain and deterioration constitute physical imbalance?  I find that it's very easy for people to criticise the concept of euthanisia, when they themselves have probably never suffered to that extent; that's why my personal opinion is that the right to choose to die when critically ill without hope of recovery, is an important right to have.  

And, at the same time, that scope should be given - with scrutiny - to allow that decision to be made by proxy when the person is incapable of making it.   For example - I've never made a living will.  But if I was in a vegatative state like Terri Schiavos, I would definately want my family to be able to tell them to turn off the life support.

NB: note that the Terry Schiavo case is not euthanasia; it's withdrawal of treatment.  There are different legal issues in both, and also different medical/moral issues.

[Swamp_Thing]

Originally posted by Liberator
As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place).  

Why is that? If i was to suffer an accident tomorrow and became tetraplegic, i would choose suicide. Am i imbalanced? What happened in between to make me imbalanced then, but not now?
And being a tetraplegic, having only the use of my neck (if lucky), i couldn´t physically pick up a bottle of pills or a gun to kill myself. Am i a coward then??

I haven´t made a will or testament, about what i would like to see done if i were in a similar situation to Terry. But i have vocalized my wishes to my family, they know i would rather get a peacefull send off and a quick end, than to live years and years as a vegetable. , the loss of the use of my legs alone would make me consider suicide. I can´t see myself living in a wheel chair. I would rather die.
The problem is that in most countries the law would see such a will and testament as being null and void, because the law doesn´t consider suicide as one of your inate individual rights. That´s why no one writes them.
Basically we are ruled by religion, allthough we don´t admit it. The only obstacule to passing an ammendment to allow assisted suicide, is a religious one. Because the curch deems suicide as a sin (you can´t even be buried in consacrated ground if you kill yourself), the laws were made around it.
It´s about time we get over this religious dogma, and start thinking about changing such bias laws. I am not religious, so why should i be subjected to religious laws and considerations?
My body and my life are my own to decide what i wish done with them. It´s up to me alone, not to some priest or judges.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Liberator
As far as Euthanasia goes, if you're conscious and of sound mind enough to decide you want to die(although contemplating suicide shows imbalance in the first place) you should be able to figure out a way to take care of it yourself.  

Like shooting anti-euthanasia protesters until they give you the death sentence????

Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the most voratious supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to live because she didn't choose to die are also supporters of the death penalty?


You have the right to live! Only God has the right to choose who lives and dies. Unless you commit a crime in Texas. Then we'll kill your ass!

[NGTM-1R]

Originally posted by Swamp_Thing

Why is that? If i was to suffer an accident tomorrow and became tetraplegic, i would choose suicide. Am i imbalanced? What happened in between to make me imbalanced then, but not now?
And being a tetraplegic, having only the use of my neck (if lucky), i couldn´t physically pick up a bottle of pills or a gun to kill myself. Am i a coward then??
...
...
Basically we are ruled by religion, allthough we don´t admit it. The only obstacule to passing an ammendment to allow assisted suicide, is a religious one. Because the curch deems suicide as a sin (you can´t even be buried in consacrated ground if you kill yourself), the laws were made around it.

Much as you may say it Trashman, in the event I doubt you would actually go through with it. Even in places where euthanasia is legal, the vast majority of terminally ill or badly crippled people do not opt for that route. This reflects a basic biological drive to go on living, regardless of circumstances. Even in horrible pain, a dog or cat never kills itself. Nor a dolphin or a sparrow.

Those who lose such a basic instinct worry us of the majority. They appear a dangerous aberration which must be controlled. Perhaps they are. Perhaps not. But that, not religon, is why your amendment will not pass. Religon merely cloaks the more fundemental reason.

[aldo_14]

Who are you to judge what is and is not a dangerous abberation?

[Liberator]

We don't know what Terri's(note the proper spelling) wishes are/were, what we do know is based on hearsay and conjecture.  I will choose life every time because I beleive that every last man and woman on this pathetic mudball has a divinely decreed purpose to their living.

The fact that she is still conscious and alert after 11 days without food or water is enough to tell me that Terri hasn't fulfilled her purpose and wants to live.

[Ghostavo]

Originally posted by Liberator
The fact that she is still conscious and alert after 11 days without food or water is enough to tell me that Terri hasn't fulfilled her purpose and wants to live.

right...

[StratComm]

While I do feel sorry for her and her family, I must reiterate that I concur with the courts' decision; the ultimate responsibility to determine when she should no longer be treated lies with her next-of-kin, her husband.  It's the political wrangling, the media circus, and the misinformation about her and her family that I find appaling, and quite frankly I am glad that there is no more avenues to push this issue into.  It's been said before, this has been going on for over seven years.  Let her go in peace is all I can say.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Liberator
We don't know what Terri's(note the proper spelling) wishes are/were, what we do know is based on hearsay and conjecture.  I will choose life every time because I beleive that every last man and woman on this pathetic mudball has a divinely decreed purpose to their living.

You would choose life.  This isn't your choice, though - the court had to decide what it could, based on the evidence available of what Terri would have wanted; it's a bastard of a situation, no doubt, but if Terri Schiavo had been mentally able to make that decision, then there wouldn't have been a decision to make.

If your opinion is based upon a supposition of what she wanted, then I'd suggest it could easily be wrong - unless you've been to every court hearing, and heard every piece of evidence put in support of either viewpoint of her wishes, then you're not in a position to make a true judgement.

If it's based on medical evidence - i.e. that she's not in an irrecoverable post-vegetative-state - then I believe the court appointed neutral doctor would disagree, and the length of time would support the diagnosis of irrecoverable PVS.

If it's simply part of a view against euthanasia, then this isn't the issue for debating it, because this is allowing her to die, not killing her.  Withdrawal of treatment is not euthanasia; it doesn't accelerate the process of death, because the treatment itself has only aritificially postponed it.

Originally posted by Liberator

The fact that she is still conscious and alert after 11 days without food or water is enough to tell me that Terri hasn't fulfilled her purpose and wants to live.

She was never conscious or alert in 15 years; that's what PVS is, a waking unconsciouness.  Your eyes are open but there's nothing working behind them.

Don't let 9 hours of video - of random movements and responses -  edited into 4 1/2 minutes of highlights fool you.

[Deepblue]

Update:

Jesse Jackson (whoa) visited her and thinks she should live...

[aldo_14]

Oh, well clearly all the doctors are wrong, then.

[Deepblue]

All? It's pretty divided among doctors.

[Stealth]

Originally posted by karajorma
Am I the only person who finds it ironic that the most voratious supporters of Terri Schiavo's right to live because she didn't choose to die are also supporters of the death penalty?

that sound just like a quota from "the life of david gale"

All? It's pretty divided among doctors

no it's not.

the vast majority of terminally ill or badly crippled people do not opt for that route. This reflects a basic biological drive to go on living, regardless of circumstances. Even in horrible pain, a dog or cat never kills itself. Nor a dolphin or a sparrow.

yeah, but you see, unlike humans, a dog, cat, dolphin, or sparrow lack the intellect of a human.  they can't inject themselves with an overdose of morphine, etc. they most likely don't have the ability to think "wait, i'm in extreme pain, let me find a way to end my life"

don't try to correlate the life of an animal, to the life of a human.