« Daily Kos: "Nutty Extremists" | Main | Scratch n' Match Meltdown »

ABC Conducts Bogus Push Poll For Euthanasia

Capt. Ed has the goods on the Bogus ABC poll the liberals keep citing as a justification for starving Terri Schiavo to death. Get a load of the central question.

2. Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years. Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible. Her husband and her parents disagree about whether she would have wanted to be kept alive. Florida courts have sided with the husband and her feeding tube was removed on Friday.

As Ed rightly notes, she has never been on life support, she is simply getting food and water thru a tube. That is not "on life support." Further, while some doctors have said she had "no consciousness " others in the medical community disagree.

Once again, the people who want her dead are willing to stretch the truth to kill her. Why? If they were doing the right thing why do they have to lie to defend their actions?


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ABC Conducts Bogus Push Poll For Euthanasia:

» Our Life linked with But Terri Isn't On Life Support

» The League of David linked with The Measure of a Man's Character

» Say Anything linked with Americans Don't Favor Schiavo Intervention

» In Re: linked with Terry Shaivo and public opinion

» Sierra Faith linked with Push Polling Your Way to Murder

» JackLewis.net linked with The media is biased?!? No! Surely not!

» Six Meat Buffet linked with The Left's Death Culture

Comments (46)

I was thinking about writin... (Below threshold)

I was thinking about writing about the "life support" thing all day today. I noticed it at around 2PM today the sudden shift in terminology by the MSM. I finally realized they call it life support. Even though it's not a breathing apparatus or something that keeps her heart going Terri still needs it to live. Thus, supporting her life. It's a broad generalization that might be a bit too broad but not completely inaccurate.

That's something I'm wrestl... (Below threshold)

That's something I'm wrestling with. I've come across so many people (including my grandmother) who, having gotten all of their information from the cute Canadian at ABC, think it's a shame that the government's interfering when a loving husband just wants to let his brain-dead wife die in peace as she requested. It depends on the person which approach gets them to say, "well, I didn't know that, that makes it different" -- whether it's the marital behavior of said loving husband, or the doctors who think there's a chance of some sort of improvement, or that therapy's really never been tried and actually has been blocked.

I know some of the people who don't want this out, and who don't want therapy to be tried, and who don't want any of the newer brain-function tests done, are indeed nasty people. But they can't all be. What in the world is their motivation?

and has been on life sup... (Below threshold)
Brian:

and has been on life support for 15 years

Do you really think there would be much difference in response if that were "and has been on a feeding tube for 15 years"?

At this point, I'd like to ... (Below threshold)

At this point, I'd like to point out that, according to ABC, I've been on life support for the last 32 and a half years.

If they were doing the ... (Below threshold)

If they were doing the right thing why do they have to lie to defend their actions?

Because these are the same people that want to take guns away from responsible, law-abiding Americans, and it's the only strategy they know.

Example: Sniper rifles can take down an airliner from 2,000 yards away.

Yeah, like a set of surgical tools can allow me to perform brain surgery. Sorry for getting O.T. here, but I found the parallel interesting.

From here:<a href=... (Below threshold)
andy:

From here:

http://www.terrisfight.org/terrislaw.html

In 1999, the Florida Legislature expanded their definition of "life support" to include food and water that was delivered in an assisted fashion (feeding tubes and total parental nutrition).

So, ok, she's been on life support, as defined in the State of Florida, for six years.

I'm starting to think it do... (Below threshold)
Julie:

I'm starting to think it doesn't matter. Congress ordered de novo review. There is no adequate way a judge can conduct de novo review before this poor woman succumbs to dehydration. Since, he has not ordered hydration pending review, I strongly suspect that he never had any intention of granting the tko. So much for fairness. What a piece of shit. And, if by some chance he does grant the tko, he's still a piece of shit for allowing her to suffer this long.

Total parental nutrition...... (Below threshold)

Total parental nutrition... does breastfeeding count?

One thing we agree on, Juli... (Below threshold)
Brian:

One thing we agree on, Julie. Whichever way he ultimately rules, it's unconscionable that he's letting it drag on overnight.

Brian: Re your post @ 09:0... (Below threshold)
Old Coot:

Brian: Re your post @ 09:07PM. Damn! I agree with you on something. Never figured that would happen.

Whichever way he ultimat... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Whichever way he ultimately rules, it's unconscionable that he's letting it drag on overnight.

Well, actually, the judge must rule on the preliminary injunction to replace the tube, which requires at minimum that there is a substantial likelihood of the plaintiff's success. Since the Schindler's lawyer, David Gibbs, offered no real legal justification (meaning citing any cases to support their case, constitutional precedent, etc), it would be hard for the judge to consider their success likely, and therefore grant the injunction. Just because Judge Whittemore won't be bullied by the Congress to find as they want him to doesn't mean he's doing something wrong; in fact he is simply following the law. Once again, it seems people want judges to rule on emotion rather than the law.

Oh, and by the way, here's ... (Below threshold)
mantis:

Oh, and by the way, here's a definition of a push poll

A "Push Poll" is a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging "information" about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this "information" effects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to "push" the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. This is clearly political telemarketing, using innuendo and, in many cases, clearly false information to influence voters; there is no intent to conduct research.

Since this case will be decided in a court of law instead of by popular vote, these aren't the same thing now are they Paul? Unless of course you think ABC called Judge Whittemore, and somehow this will poll will sway his decision.

Mantis that is a really stu... (Below threshold)
Just Me:

Mantis that is a really stupid defense of the poll.

So would be happier if he just said "ABC used misleading questions in order to skew a poll?"

Julie sadly I agree with you, this review isn't looking too good. And while I am not sure you could term this judge an "activest" mantis, I think we can certainly chalk them up as liberal.

So would be happier if h... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So would be happier if he just said "ABC used misleading questions in order to skew a poll?"

Yes, I would. But I wasn't defending the poll; I think it is a misleading question as people would normally equate "life support" with respirators and the like. Plus I think all this citing of poll numbers in the Schiavo threads by Brian and others has been silly and beside the point. But that doesn't change the fact that Paul misuses the term "push poll".

On the contrary, Mantis, th... (Below threshold)

On the contrary, Mantis, the liberal MSM is most definitely trying to bring about a Euthanasia Society like they have in Europe now.
So the information in the poll is designed to skew the responses in a certain direction to not only make it easier to cite bogus "popular" support for euthanasia in the future, but also to get a measure of commitment for it from the people they "polled".

It's actually pretty clever, to tell the truth.

Mantis you are a complete f... (Below threshold)
Paul:

Mantis you are a complete freaking moron.

Grow up and get a life.

You want to play childish freaking word games, I don't have time for that shit. You can disagree with me all you want.. just make it rational... dumbshit posts like that will be deleted.

It insults thinking people.

Paul,I'm sorry, bu... (Below threshold)

Paul,

I'm sorry, but I'm siding with Mantis on this one. Logic and reason prevail over emotion any day.

Just ask John Kerry and his "48%".

Firstly, to respond to the ... (Below threshold)
Wanderlust:

Firstly, to respond to the troll (I know, can't help it):

No, the poll is not likely to influence the judge. However, the outcome of influence tactics being used in the "court of popular opinion", where it will influence voters. And before you dispute it, the MSM has been using such means to influence voters for a long time (e.g., William Randolph Hearst's success in stirring up what became the Spanish-American War around the turn of the century).

Secondly, I want to stand up and be counted with those who, like Paul, find Michael Schiavo's actions (and those of his doctor, lawyer, and circuit court judge) simply abominable.

I must confess that I was one of those who had hardly any idea what all the fuss was about, up to the point where the US Senate and Congress took up the issue. I had relied upon headlines that assured me Terri was "brain dead", on "life support", and that there was "no hope whatsoever" for any possible recovery. I surmised that the fight for her life was nothing more than an emotional tug-of-war between a husband whose wife was beyond hope, and a family who was so desperate to cling to the life of their child that they refused to admit that there was no life there left to cling. I felt sorry for Michael and Terri, and thought that she would be better off "in another world", beyond her hopeless suffering.

Thanks to the unremitting efforts of Paul and others, I now realize that my initial views were horribly, horribly wrong.

I was grossly misinformed.

Or perhaps willingly misled?

Yes, I made a lot of assumptions. I thought that Terri not only had "no hope", but that the cost of care to Michael was surely prohibitive, and that no one was willing to help him bear either the financial or emotional burden of caring for a "vegetable". I thought the parents were blinded by their own grief, and through their blindness, needlessly fighting their son in law's right, as a husband, to ease his wife's pain. I also assumed that Terri had expressed a clear wish to not have her life "prolonged" by artificial means.

Again, I was horribly, horribly wrong.

Based on the efforts of many, now I understand that:

* the diagnosis of PVS was not conducted in accordance with standard medical practice, or according to the guidelines set forth and agreed to by neurological professionals

* the diagnosis of PVS was conducted by a doctor (Cranford) who has made his fortune, and fame, on the back of the "right to die" movement

* the circuit court judge, Greer, refused to consider positions contrary to either Michael's, or Dr. Cranford's, regardless of how the so-called "diagnosis" of PVS was handled by Cranford

But more damning still:

* the Schindlers (Terri's parents) were willing and eager to take on the financial and emotional burdens of Terri's long term care

* Terri's contorted appearance is not the result of her brain damage, but rather, the result of lack of PT (physical therapy) that could have easily been done, but refused by Michael, regardless of entreaties by the Schindlers to allow the therapy

* Terri suffered damage to her body, appearance, and teeth due to neglect that Michael could easily have prevented, and the Schindlers were willing to pay for

* despite mounting evidence that Terri was not braindead (reacting to people around her, however subtly), Michael continually refused offers of help to care for her

So, forget for a moment (only a moment) the issue of how Michael was willing to allow his wife to die: why, can anyone tell me, why, if Michael had taken another woman as a wife (common law), if the Schindlers were more than willing to take on both financial and emotional responsibility of Terri's long term care...why was Michael so unwilling to let someone else take over, walk away, and get on with his own (and his "new" family's) life???

Why wouldn't Michael Schiavo simply hand over Terri to her parents and walk away???

Michael makes a fight to "rehabilitate" Terri, back in 1992. Ok. Good so far.

Then he doesn't take care of her body. While he's claiming to want to "rehabilitate" her.

He allows her body to suffer the effects of atrophy (muscles) and decay (bed sores, tooth decay).

He hires a doctor, obstensibly to "diagnose" her, who has a demonstrated record of trying to kill people who "have no hope".

He uses weaknesses in the "findings of fact" methodology of the circuit courts to ensure that only his voice, and the voice of his [death] doctor's, are heard.

He ignores the in-laws who want so badly to care for their daughter, even if he won't.

If he wanted to remarry and start a new life, regardless of his failure to hold his wedding vow of loving his wife "in sickness and in health", he could have simply filed for divorce, citing "irreconcilable differences". Virtually all 50 states allow for uncontested divorces in such cases.

In short, he could have divorced her, turned her care over to her parents, and start over with a new lover and begin a new family.

So why refuse to divorce her, refuse help with her care, and hire a doctor who makes his living by convincing people that they have the right to die, and not live?

The only answer that looms large in my mind is $$$. Insurance policy payout. A big one.

Given the facts thus far (I am referring several times above to information contained in Johansen's article on National Review Online for the facts regarding Terri's care, treatment/rehab options, etc.), can there be any other reason...?

Given these facts, can anyone come up with an alternate reason that is plausible?

Otherwise, IMHO, Michael Schiavo is no different than a murderer. His weapon of choice: a flawed court system.

God help us all.

Brian: yes, there's an acu... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Brian: yes, there's an acute difference in terminology in medical science between "life support" and "a feeding tube."

Begin Sarcasm:

Except to liberals, I guess, then there's no difference and the definition of either/both is "kill Terry Schiavo because she's (mumble, mumble, mumble here)...."

End Sarcasm.

People who want Terry Schia... (Below threshold)
-S-:

People who want Terry Schiavo's life to come to a truncated end never hesitate to decry others as "trying to practice medicine" on Schiavo's behalf/about her condition, as among laypersons doing so and yet there's that information that the State of Florida passed some legislation to include "a feeding tube" (etc.) as being included in the issue of "life support" and, hey, ask critical care physicians about the difference...because there's a difference.

Taken to the extreme, all food and water are an aspect of life support, yes (can't survive without them), but...

I think there's more than enough bogus reasoning to go around where Schiavo is concerned. I still say, however, why the rush to put an end to her life? Let her live on "life support" (given FL's definition of that) and receive ongoing care from her parents and family...what's the problem with that? That it isn't "her wishes"? I say that there's ample reason to believe that Terry Schiavo didn't wish to die, and doesn't now, despite her limited capacity (otherwise, she'd be "dead" already -- people seem to overlook the incredible issue of what life itself is to the living individual).

I'm speculating, yes, but so is everyone else. I still don't understand why the push to bring about the end of her life, given that she has a loving and available support system available to her (and that discludes Michael Schiavo).

I agree with you, julie, about this decision -- it seemed to me from the start to be that of grandstanding, not one that would make any difference to Terry other than that she'd die anyway.

Wanderlust...my thoughts, e... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Wanderlust...my thoughts, exactly. Thank you for writing out what so many of your fellow humans have also come to realize and reason where Schiavo (and others like her, including, potentially, all and each of us) is concerned.

Yeah, there's no motivation from Michael Schiavo to explain his behavior (and that by his attorney and related paid consultants, not representing Terry Schiavo but representing Michael Schiavo) other than he insists that he is acting as per Terry Schiavo's wishes. While her 'wishes,' such as they may have been, or were, are reported as being opposite what Michael Schiavo reports them as being, by her friends and family, and/or were uttered by Terry by some limited awareness...

Even if uttered (ever so), they're not substantiated. So, Michael's insistence becomes that of his own opinion, of heresay, in my opinion. All respect to any spouse here, Michael Schiavo has not displayed actions that indicate that he even wanted Terry Schiavo to be comfortable, much greater that she be treated through to any conclusion or even maintained well, if at all. What Michael Schiavo's actions prove to my read is that he has intended Terry Schiavo's degeneration, if not (there's also reason to suspect this) perhaps contributed to her current condition in all it's limitations (I'm saying here that there's evidence, at least a suggestion of it, of Michael Schiavo having mistreated Terry Schiavo, of Terry Schiavo having been unhappy in her marriage to Michael Schiavo prior to her near-demise).

Michael Schiavo seems to be intent (d'oh) that his 'wife' die and yet can only explain why as being due to what he opines she wanted. I just cannot believe that, without any written contract to that effect nor with testimony by those who knew Terry well, do now even, that Michael's position as spouse would allow him to reign death upon his 'wife' based upon his opinion only...

I guess Michael Schiavo has to say something. Otherwise, he's clearly a murderer, or at least someone bent on committing murder and asking society to allow him to do so, based upon his 'will.'

The MSM has been telling us... (Below threshold)
Rod Stanton:

The MSM has been telling us lies as "news" for 54 years, at least. You would think after Rathergate they would change. But, you would be wrong as Jordon gate and this ABC lie prove. Too many bigots in the Mgmt team at the MSM for them to ever tell the truth.

No we don't. My objection i... (Below threshold)
Julie:

No we don't. My objection is based on compassion. You are just anxious to gloat.

My comment was directed tow... (Below threshold)
Julie:

My comment was directed towards Brian.

Mantis: Thank you ... (Below threshold)
Julie:

Mantis:

Thank you for another ignorant opinion. Is this based on your years of law and motion practice? I assume you are only parroting some other asshat. Why don't you go troll on their blog? Apparently, you have long worn out your welcome here.

As Ed rightly notes, she... (Below threshold)

As Ed rightly notes, she has never been on life support, she is simply getting food and water thru a tube. That is not "on life support." Further, while some doctors have said she had "no consciousness " others in the medical community disagree.

Getting nurishment through a tube in her side may not be the medical definition of 'life support' but seems close enough for the layperson. You're splitting hairs here.

The only members of the medical community who DON'T say Ms. Schiavo is a vegetable with no chance of recovery are a couple of discredited quacks who have latched onto the Schiavo family like lampreys on a shark. Their claims have been ruled without merit by court after court after court.

Considering your past faith in the infallibility of GOP push polls, Paul, your complaint here seems designed merely to parrot the Tom Delay/Randall Terry far-right party line.

There seems to be something... (Below threshold)

There seems to be something really bizarre going on here. Some people (I'm lookin' at you, Don) seem to be saying, "She's a vegetable with no chance of recovery! Ha!" as if that settles everything.

I know there are some people out there arguing the no-chance-of-recovery point. I am not one of them. I fully accept that Terri has suffered massive brain damage and that she will almost certainly never get any closer to normal than she is today.

So what?

Terri is alive. She's breathing on her own. She's both legally and morally a person, disability or no disability.

In the America where I want to live, we don't starve people to death. Not for any reason, not for any excuse, no matter how disabled they might be. That's just not human.

Getting nurishment throu... (Below threshold)
Julie:

Getting nurishment through a tube in her side may not be the medical definition of 'life support' but seems close enough for the layperson. You're splitting hairs here.

And, you're just demonstrating your ignorance. And, if a "layperson" thinks a J tube is life support, they are ignorant, too. Nothing to brag about. There is a blogger who's baby suffered lack of oxygen at birth. He is at home with a J tube that is easily maintained by his parents. Hell, even an idiot like you could handle it.

Jeff and Julie:The... (Below threshold)

Jeff and Julie:

There IS a few valid arguments for keeping the unfortunate Ms. Schivio alive. You might want to look up some of them, instead of parroting the Randall Terry party line.

For example: she does have the ability to breathe. She does not have the ability to think, reason, orcommunicate---her cerebral cortex isn'y just damaged, it doesn't exist any more.

In the America where I want to live, we don't starve people to death. Not for any reason, not for any excuse, no matter how disabled they might be.

Jeff, are you sure you and the Bush regime see eye-to-eye on this? Because the Bush regime has clearly demonstrated that INABILITY TO PAY is grounds to have feeding tubes removed. The only reason they are making these efforts for Ms. Schivio is public relations. Are you claiming that we as a society have the responsibility to maintain a feeding tube for every single person who can breathe on their own alive no matter what the cost?

Don Myers: you forgot to i... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Don Myers: you forgot to include the "religious right" pejorative in that foolishly ridiculous list of yours.

So, it's your opinion that severely disabled persons be put to death (after all, they're severely disabled)? I mean, that's what I get from reading your parsing there.

But, to bring some truth to the issue, not that it hasn't been amply offered elsewhere, this site and by many on many threads, Terri Schiavo is not "a vegetable." She's not in a persistent vegetative state, she's not on a ventilator, she's capable of breathing on her own, but she is severely brain damaged. Many suffer worse brain damage and are still living, so it's not sufficient reason to assume that Terri should be put to death.

Again, what is the reason that she should be put to death? What process is it that impels you and others to demand her death? That's the issue for most the rest of us.

P.S.: In case you missed this, Terri Schiavo is not "a vegetable." At least provide her with current medical diagnosis and evaluation inorder to arrive at whatever her state actually is but barring that, there's no evidence that she is "a vegetable" except in the imaginations of those who conclude that it's best that she lose her life just because she's complex and the issue is complicated as to her life otherwise.

Don Myers: Michael Schiavo... (Below threshold)
-S-:

Don Myers: Michael Schiavo was already paid a damage award on Terri's behalf for her rehabilitative care, and yet he denied that to her while also accepting the financial award.

According to Texas Law, sig... (Below threshold)

According to Texas Law, signed by George W. Bush in 1999, hydration and nutrition are defined as life support.
Sorry Cap'n and Paul, but you're missing the boat.
All the stuff you're ranting is clearly defined in Texas Law by the two laws W. signed into existence--the Advanced Directives Act and the Texas Futile Care Law, and those laws clearly come down on the side of the husband.
Now why don't you talk about the infant who got the plug pulled last week in Houston due to W's laws?

Except to liberals, I gu... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Except to liberals, I guess, then there's no difference and the definition of either/both is...

...is defined as equivalent by the Florida state llegislature.

Julie, rising above the fra... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Julie, rising above the fray for a minute, doesn't it bother you that you're about the only one posting who regularly fills their posts with personal insults, name calling, and sarcasm? On this point, I don't care which side of the issue you're on. But almost everyone else--even those on your side of the issue--at least strives to make cogent arguments.

Feel free to respond with personal insults, name calling, and sarcasm.

You didn't ask me, Brian, b... (Below threshold)

You didn't ask me, Brian, but just a few hours ago I sent Julie an e-mail that can only really be described as a fan letter. Here's the good part:

You say things that I wouldn't necessarily say, and you say them in ways I wouldn't necessarily choose, but every once in a while you just rhetorically kick the ever-lovin' shit out of somebody who really needs it. Thanks for being such a badass.

In other words, Brian, sometimes you gotta sing, sometimes you gotta dance, and sometimes you just gotta use harsh language. Grow a pair and get over it.

Perhaps, Jeff. But there's ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Perhaps, Jeff. But there's a reason why you don't post that same way. Presumably because you want to be viewed as articulate and taken seriously.

It might give you a hoot to see the crashes at car races, but there's a reason why you don't drive that way yourself.

You know, Brian, there's a ... (Below threshold)

You know, Brian, there's a reason I don't write like you did there, either. It's 'cause I don't want to come across as a smug, superior son of a bitch.

You mean like a smug, super... (Below threshold)
Brian:

You mean like a smug, superior, son of a bitch who thinks they are the authority on what is human?

At least smugness and superiority are accompanied by statements that can be debated.

Anyway, never mind. This is about the response I expected, though I didn't expect it from you.

Well, to put it bluntly … y... (Below threshold)

Well, to put it bluntly … yeah. Exactly. I mean, I just can't comprehend what kind of arrogance somebody has to feel to be able to declare, with all the certainty in the world, "Terri Schiavo is not a person, and does not deserve to live."

I just don't understand that at all.

Yeah, that is an arrogant, ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Yeah, that is an arrogant, simplistic, and inaccurate statement. Fortunately, no one has ever said that.

In reference to Andy's post... (Below threshold)
Gretchen:

In reference to Andy's post about the Florida State Legislature:

"In 1999, the Florida Legislature expanded their definition of "life support" to include food and water that was delivered in an assisted fashion (feeding tubes and total parental nutrition)."

And to Adrienne's subsequent post:

"Total parental nutrition... does breastfeeding count?"

I would like to point out that it is not "parental," but "parenteral" nutrition. Total Parenteral Nutrition (TPN) is simply nutrients and hydration which are not processed by the digestive system, and usually come in the form of a venous infusion. This differs from "enteral" nutrition, which is introduced to, and processed by, the digestive system. Just to be clear, Terri has been receiving enteral nutrition through a tube that connects directly to her digestive tract through her abdominal wall.

I point this out not because it is an important detail of this debate, but because perhaps some of you should get your facts straight before ranting and raving about a particular topic.

Many of the pro-Schindler conservatives on this list clearly know very little about the ethics, laws and technicalities involved in Terri's case, and are only interested in furthering their own political agendas with what seems like a good opportunity for hell-raising.

Sound like anyone else you know?

Whether Terri Schiavo shoul... (Below threshold)
petr:

Whether Terri Schiavo should continue to be fed through the feeding tube or not isn't something I have the slightest idea about.

However, I do know that last April, when my father lay in the hospital for six weeks after suffering for more than 2 years with an unknown disease (only to find out much too late that it was ALS), my mother and my brothers and sisters had a dreadful decision to make. Let him be sent -- respirator and feeding tube in tow -- to a nursing home, where he'd spend the remainder of this existence with almost no cognitive awareness because his body had been so ravaged it affected his mind, or remove the apparatus and let God bring him home.

My father had never finished his living will, and my mother and oldest sister -- who held the power of attorney -- were so overwrought they couldn't think straight. My younger sister, who wasn't even 30 yet and always daddy's little girl, and I (youngest son) tried to figure out what was best. My father and I were very close, so close apparently that I was the only one to whom he'd said, "No machines. I don't want to be lying there like that." Honestly, I had no idea that he hadn't explicitly said that to anyone else. So, I was a bit taken aback when everyone said they'd never heard that. But they knew I wouldn't lie. I adored my father. I wanted him around forever. But not like that. For whom? Him? The only thing he wanted was to be the head of the family. He certainly didn't want this.

If any of his three sisters had stepped in and disputed what my mother knew in her heart about her husband, and what my siblings and I knew about our father, I don't know how I would have dealt with the situation. However, if the GOVERNMENT had stepped in and tried to use my father as a political pawn for their ridiculous grandstanding, I'd have killed him myself and gone to jail simply to have done the right thing by my dad. Congress has no business interfering in this case.

And everyone who has read about it and seen it on tv and thinks they know the whole story -- if you haven't lived it, you don't know it. end of story.

Yo, feeding tubes arnt such... (Below threshold)
Dantheman:

Yo, feeding tubes arnt sucha big deal, heck it's a matter of convienence sometimes... like those yogurts in a tube! same thing, pretty much. Ppl gotta look at the reality oif the situation

Folks,Prattle on a... (Below threshold)
Hanna:

Folks,

Prattle on as you must about the fate of this poor women and her loved ones, the fact is (and I think this is what most Amnericans are most upset about with this sad affair)--is that ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! Not your business Paul, not yours Mantis, not yours wanderlust, and not my business either. This is a private affair, as the courts--including many conservative jurists--have now unequivocally ruled. The Republican's and other far right conservatives will rue that day they made this THEIR business.

Actually, I got it a bit wr... (Below threshold)
Hanna:

Actually, I got it a bit wrong (see my last post), petr above got it quite right, stating much more eloquently than I WHY this is none of the damn religious right's (or anyone else's) business.

Do most states consider fee... (Below threshold)
mel:

Do most states consider feeding tubes alone as life support? Or only when they are used in conjunction with ventilators etc? Or are they considered to be life assist devices?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy