"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:0ZtYf.13039$68.5050@bignews7.bellsouth.net...

When you become dictator of Florida, let us know. Until then, the law
is that the husband is considered the next of kin before anyone else.

Next of kin does not stipulate ignoring other kin.
Why do you think it does?
The government here takes children away from their NEXT OF KIN routinely.
You got anything to show me where the government isn't some hypocrite now
contradicting itself via its whims?

Totally irrelevant. Terry Schiavo was not a child.

Of course it's not the only decision.

Show me a case where it isn't. Why do you think the judge and medical
personell who were for removing the feeding tube from Terri were so
'deadset' against her and her parents?

In her case, among the other considerations besides financial was the
medical professional estimation that there was no (zero, zilch, nada)
chance of recovery.

Who ever said that? But to expect
a hospital to be able hold a valuable bed indefinitely for a person that
has no chance of recovery is naive.

If moneuy is not the only consideration then why do you think that the
'valuable' bed is so important?

Avaialbility of scarce resources is certainly a very important factor.

That
does not mean it's the only factor.

You act like hospitals are now only for those who can pay the room rates.

Your straw man is noted.

Big mistake.
Vaulable beds?
Give the people a break and stop looking at hospital beds as $$ machines.
Exposing yourself as one of the people who like to cause illnesses to the
point that you can maximize your profits is quite unbecoming of you.
Is that why the medical sector says we need a new hospital now?
Is it because you want MORE sick people to enrich your filthy lucre-lined
pockets?
The profit motive of the medical sector is too much in conflict with
their assigned duties.

Assigning monetary values to scarce resources is a very effective
method to doling them out. You know of course that women would
routinely be in the hospital for several days after giving birth.

Do you understand why they do not anymore?

The relative scarcity of available
beds has outstripped the necessity of such stays.

If it was solely a profit motive, why would they care whether or not
Terry Schiavo was there or not. Wouldn't they make more money by
keeping all the PVS patients alive indefinitely?

"Sorry, ma'am. We aren't accepting any new cardiac patients. We're full
up with PVS patients."

Full up with PVS patients?
LOL!!!!!!!

Thank you. I see you can appreciate hyperbole.

But the point is
valid. The hospital must be able to make value judgements on the
effectiveness of its practice. In the battlefield, it's called triage.

Do you or do you not agree that Terry Schiavo's condition was
irreversible?

Despite what you hear from religious Polyannas, a price can be put on
a human life and is done so daily by each and every one of us.

Some cost our society less than others, correct?

And some more.

Yeah. The more they cost society the more the medical establishment
makes.

Not necessarily.

But every time you drive on the highway at 60 mph,
you are doing a risk analysis of the value of your life and of others
vs.
the convenience of getting to work at a reasonable time.

I had no idea driving a car was so risky.

Walking across the street is risky. That's why there are ordinances
against jaywalking.

In the United States, travel by automobile is the most risky when
compared against other modes of travel (fatalities per passenger-mile).
Travel by airplane is the safest.

Railway is a close second.

The point is though, that if every human life is invaluable, the speed
limit should be 5 mph. But it's not. Why?

Because we place a higher
value on convenience over the risk of being in an accident.

Jeepers, where have you been. During the very time that Terry Schiavo
was taking up a valuable bed in Florida,

"Valuable bed"....lol.
Do you mean $350 per day?

$500, $1000...who cares?

If it was strictly a money gambit, why
would the hospital care so long as it gets paid?

Texas was shutting off life support
for Sun Hudson (and rightly so IMHO).

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/healthlawprof_blog/2005/03/lifesupport_sto.html

You mean they are guilty, too of depriving a citizen of the USA life
without just cause?

It certainly exposes the Republicans as hypocritical.

This society is guilty.

So what is your solution?

Indefinitely keep every person on life support?

Who is going to pay for this?

Johnny wrote:

"The Watch Dog" <tirhuan@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144102684.197788.269240@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...

Johnny wrote:

I am for personal autonomy with regard to one's own life.
In issues of icapcatitation such as the Terri Schiavo case, the right
to
terminate such a life should rest, imo, with the people who brought
her
into
the world, and not with any one else

Special pleading. What ever happened to "a woman shall leave her
parents and cleave unto her husband"?

How would I know since it wasn't recorded that way.

Gosh, you're absolutely right! The actual quote is "Therefore shall a
man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife:
and they shall be one flesh." My mistake!

Now tell me how that affects the point I was making with the quote in
any way whatsoever.

The law says that the husband is the next in line. Do you think it
should
be "the people who brought her
into the world" in all cases, or just this one?

In any case where there is a person or persons, next in line, according
to
the law, who are willing to assume the role of caretaker for the
incapacitated individual or individuals.

So you're going to let incapacitated people die, not because a judge
came to the conclusion (based on testimony of those who knew her) that
that was what she wanted, but because she doesn't have any relatives
who want to bother with her, or can afford to take care of her, or get
contributions from political organizations who want to use her as a
prop? If a life is worth preserving, it should be worth perserving
whether her parents can afford it or not.

At about the same time as the Terri Shiavo case, there was an infant
boy dying in a hospital in Texas. It was a different case - he had a
fatal illness. (Although who knows if a cure might be discovered in the
following week, or, as so many of of the right wing said about Terri,
"a miracle could occur"?) But he was alive, and conscious, and could
survive for a couple of weeks more on the medication he was being
given. And his mother wanted him to stay alive as long as possible. But
he was black, and she was single and poor, and none of the people
"enraged over Terri's fate" could spare a nickel, or a moment's
thought, for him. So the hospital - the government, really - took him
off the medication she couldn't afford, and he died. In Pres. Bush's
home state. So much for the culture of life.

I realize that some people think that the husband here should be
disqualified because he was a "bad husband."

Strawman.

Did you read the original post in this thread?

"Another question asked in this week's poll is: 'Michael Schiavo has
had a
girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her. Considering
this, do
you agree or disagree that Michael Schiavo should turn guardianship of
Terri
over to her parents?'

You're asolutely right, it's a strawman argument. But it isn't MY
strawman argument; it's one that was brought up by the right wing over
and over. So I thought I should dispense with it as quickly a possible.