The Terri Schiavo Case

[MikeFerrara]

I agree with you Mike as long as you are fighting for the best interests of your daughter and not in spite of the husband. I just don't feel the parents in this case are doing this for their daughters interests and instead for their own selfish reasons.
Jason

I really don't know if there's any conflict of interest there or not and of course it isn't just the parents but the siblings also.

This whole thing has illustrated one thing for me though. That is our courts, legeslature and the people of this country don't have the common sense to see that when one stops acting as a spouse that they can no longer be trusted to act in good faith as a spouse (cuz they're already aren't). So...if nothing else goes in my living will it can serve as the sign that some so desperately need and it'll spell out that if I'm disabled and my wife stops acting like my wife (including but not limited to things like shacking up) I no longer want her for my guardian. duh!

So America...here is your sign.

 

[wrongkey]

I thought this article on the subject from today's New York Times was pretty interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/23/politics/23repubs.html?th&emc=th

Sorry, but you may have to sign up to read it, if so inclined. I'd cut and paste, but that's a no-no.

In a nutshell, the article discusses the angst within some conservative circles over them going to the federal government in an effort to get the result social conservatives want, but have been denied by the process on the state level. Meanwhile, liberals who typically would look to the federal government as the salvation for all problems have suddenly become fond of state's rights.

 

[triton94949]

...This whole thing has illustrated one thing for me though. That is our courts, legeslature and the people of this country don't have the common sense to see that when one stops acting as a spouse that they can no longer be trusted to act in good faith as a spouse ...

Common sense is a feeling.

Only juries can properly take feelings into account. That is why Peterson in California is going to the execution chamber someday. The jury felt that he violated his responsibility to his wife and to her unborn child/fetus.

Judges are quite consistent about supressing their own feelings, and focusing on statute and precedent. That is what they are sworn to do.

Seems like you are mixing apples and oranges.

 

[triton94949]

...
In a nutshell, the article discusses the angst within some conservative circles over them going to the federal government in an effort to get the result social conservatives want, but have been denied by the process on the state level. Meanwhile, liberals who typically would look to the federal government as the salvation for all problems have suddenly become fond of state's rights.

I noticed that on the news as well. It does seem ironic.

Personally I have no problems with providing further federal review opportunities for a case like this. More review is normally better than less review, no matter what the issue.

And I am a "liberal" who would normally look to the federal government as the salvation of all "major" problems for which you cannot get any state relief. Such as civil rights. Or environmental protection. Or automobile safety. Or monopoly. Or executing the mentally ill or underage. Or machine guns and rockets.

 

[jonnythan]

And I am a "liberal" who would normally look to the federal government as the salvation of all "major" problems for which you cannot get any state relief. Such as ... machine guns and rockets.

Out of curiosity, who, exactly, is giving you a problem with machine guns and rockets?

 

[BIGSAGE136]

I must get one thing off my chest....In this country/culture we wont let a criminal starve themself to death, but we are going to let this poor soul die of thirst?

I just dont get it.

 

[Web Monkey]

I must get one thing off my chest....In this country/culture we wont let a criminal starve themself to death, but we are going to let this poor soul die of thirst?

I just dont get it.

It's only because there's currently no legal way of humanely ending a person't life. OTOH, from what I've heard of Terri's condition, there isn't enough of her brain left to register hunger or thirst. The only people actually being hurt here are both sides of the family.

If your dog was in a coma with permanent brain damage, the vet would give it a shot that would end it's life quickly and painlessly.

People should only be so lucky.

Terry

 

[BIGSAGE136]

It's only because there's currently no legal way of humanely ending a person't life. OTOH, from what I've heard of Terri's condition, there isn't enough of her brain left to register hunger or thirst. The only people actually being hurt here are both sides of the family.

If your dog was in a coma with permanent brain damage, the vet would give it a shot that would end it's life quickly and painlessly.

People should only be so lucky.

Terry

If she were on death row she would get the same humane treatment.

 

[triton94949]

Out of curiosity, who, exactly, is giving you a problem with machine guns and rockets?

Different subject.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Judges are quite consistent about supressing their own feelings, and focusing on statute and precedent. That is what they are sworn to do.

You mean except when it's the supreme court and the vote is deviding along party lines? Why is a judge a partisan position anyway? Why do democrats interpret the constitution so differently than republicans? Did they learn to read on different planets or something. LOL I guess it's because before they swear to focus on the statute they swear alegiance to a political party. In fact one of the things I think we're seeing (maybe not in theis case but in others) is judges trying to make law rather than apply law.

For the sake of discussion I guess I don't know what common sense is but I know what it isn't...common.