No. The physician that made the judgement was Dr. Death.
Hired by Mike. Paid for by MIke. From the same checkbook that wrote half a million to the creepy lawyer and gave campaign funds to Judge Greer.
I’d rather see it be a little less stacked.
Given his behavior at her death toward the family, how can anyone argue that he was motivated by anything but a vendetta against them?
My answer to your question is: and it’s been running through everything I’ve written about this–unless there is a specific written signed living will, why do we need to kill these people?
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
You still haven’t really given an alternative to the existing protocol. The caring physician did diagonse this case as PVS, right? As for the 7 doctors, I was under the impression that those were doctors appointed by the court in order to verify the determination of the caring physician. This was doone after the CARING PHYSICIAN had already made his diagnosis of PVS. I am wrong on those facts?
Is your alternative that in cases where PVS is diagnosed, that other doctors be brought in and the decision must be unanimous in order for the legal guardian to give consent? That doesn’t really seem like a workable solution.
What exactly do you want to change? I don’t know why you’re so frustrated with that question, I’m just asking you to tell us exactly how you would change the system.
Let’s forget the facts of this case. A patient comes into a hospital with possible PVS. In your opinion what should be the exact steps to go from that point to the patient being removed from machines that are keeping him or her alive?[/quote]
[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
So, wait…liberals are now running about saying that the husband is in charge of the wife?
You mean we’ve just stood 50 years of women’s lib on it’s head just to kill this one poor woman?
You people are exposing yourselves as the pathetic two faced weasels I’ve always believed you were.[/quote]
I have to believe that you’re just joking about this to play devils advocate because the other alternative is that you are ACTUALLY the stupidest person on this Earth.
[quote]T-chick wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
So, wait…liberals are now running about saying that the husband is in charge of the wife?
You mean we’ve just stood 50 years of women’s lib on it’s head just to kill this one poor woman?
You people are exposing yourselves as the pathetic two faced weasels I’ve always believed you were.
I have to believe that you’re just joking about this to play devils advocate because the other alternative is that you are ACTUALLY the stupidest person on this Earth.[/quote]
T-Chick…I think he might be serious, mabe he got hit in the head at the gym today? Brother you need to re read that post, I have said some carzy things in the heat of the moment as well, so I understand, however that statement definitly needs revising.
[quote]hedo wrote:
You can judge a society and a man by how they treat the weak and helpless.
Albert Schweitzer, I believe, said that which reveres life is good. That which does not is evil.
I think that is a pretty good statement to use to evaluate decisions such as this.
Regardless I don’t think I could live with myself if I helped someone innocent hasten death as opposed to helping them live.
My two cents.[/quote]
That’s a good quote from Schweitzer. However, didn’t he say that around the early part of last century? When there was no means of keeping people with NO CEREBRAL CORTEX alive, so such an ethical dilemma as this never arose?
I’m not saying I don’t like blinking; it keeps my eyes moist and I enjoy that, but the ability to merely blink and occasionally gurgle is not what makes life precious to me; it’s stuff like communicating, thinking, experiencing friendship and love, learning. Maybe this is what Schweitzer meant by ‘life’ also?