|
|
Post by Tenarke on Mar 20, 2005 18:14:07 GMT -5
I didn’t know whether to put this here or under “Religion”. But since it has really got me steamed “Hot Topics” will do. www.nytimes.com/2005/03/20/politics/20debate.html?thThis is a private tragedy, a family squabble which had, unfortunately to go to the courts for resolution. This is in no way the business of Congress or the President. I haven’t been able to “follow the money” but I’ll bet that the legal fees for the over five year’s worth of court decisions and appeals, which have brought it to this point have been funded by the pro-life religious right. Apart from any moral question, it is a fine example of that sort of political red herring being favored by the Republicans in recent years. President Bush is in pretty poor shape as to the real political nuts and bolts these days. He can’t get sufficient backing from the pubic at large, or even from all of his own party, to get tax cuts and Medicare cuts as deep as his proposed budget requires. It doesn’t look as though he is going to be able to do the deed on Social Security either. However he is willing to give up a weekend of his vacation in Crawford, put on his white Stetson, and ride off to Washington to save the life of Terri Schiavo, who, according to the testimony of medical experts is already brain dead and no longer really has a life to save. The scenario in Congress is being stage managed by Tom Delay in the name of the Christian right. I suppose that this is to distract us from the fact that his own ethics are being questioned by the Texas courts and his own colleagues. Or rather, were being questioned until he managed to have the House Ethics Committee de-bagged. Sanctimonious S.O.B.s! Sorry. No I’m not, dammit! |
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Mar 20, 2005 20:38:58 GMT -5
I couldn't agree more!!
And the cost of keeping someone alive on life support for all that time is astronomical. The money would far better be spent on people who are going to benefit.
When I was working in the psychogeriatric field one particular consultant was reluctant to treat our people effectively because he said that any money would better be spent on treatment for children.
I found this to be a real problem as it was my patients who were affected - but I could see his point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Mar 21, 2005 1:12:57 GMT -5
The greatest irony of all is that the plug is pulled all the time in Texas at the discretion of the hospital, not the family! Check this out. |
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Mar 21, 2005 1:24:20 GMT -5
It is all very well for the "right-to-lifers" saying that all life is sacred but in the days before technology allowed the prolongation of life way beyond the body's capacity to sustain it these people would have been allowed to go without invasive intervention.
A few years ago my sister almost died from pneumonia (she was a long time smoker and her lungs are shot) and she was put onto life support. She says that it was very painful and altogether most unpleasant and that next time she wants to be allowed to die with no intervention. I imagine that she has talked this over with her doctor and hopefully her wishes will be respected.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 21, 2005 12:24:00 GMT -5
I just wonder how things developed to this point. I mean, legally, if a person is brain dead, and dependent on life support, then aren't they, well, dead? And if the person with power of attorney (in this case, her husband) says 'pull the plug' then isn't, well, the plug pulled? Parents must have had marvellously good lawyers, moving very quickly.
Dead is dead, no? Human life can't just be a vegetative existence, without hope of recovery.
I think that alot of doctors and families, whatever the law might suggest as appropriate, usually take the matter in their own hands in such cases. I had a grandmother once, 96 years old with cancer. Her husband of 70 years had died the year previously. She had lived the intervening year, more or less in bed, full of morphine. When she winded up it critical care she told us plainly that she didn't want to live any longer. It was all pain, and postponing the inevitable. Besides, Grandpa was waiting on the other side. My Dad and his siblings had a conflab with the Doctor and came back. Five minutes later, the nurse came out to say that she was dying straight away. Never asked my Dad how that actually worked. Surely sometimes, for a reasonable person, ending it is simply kindness?
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Mar 21, 2005 14:04:58 GMT -5
This has been an ongoing battle for 15 yrs. I guess. The parents contend that he didn't love Terry and only wants to pull the plug so he can get his hands on her money. So they stopped him, and this legal wrangle is the result. I think for her parents it's not only that they can't let her go- though that certainly plays a part- but also that they are determined not to let him win.
And Terry loses as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Mar 21, 2005 20:09:03 GMT -5
As I understand it, the problem in this case was that there was no written power of attorney, no “living will”. Thus, what Terri Schiavo would have wished was a matter of her husband’s word for it as opposed to that of her parents and brother. Legally, preference in such a case usually falls to the spouse and there were also several expert medical opinions given that Ms. Schiavo was indeed brain dead and her condition irreversible.
As I said before, I can only speculate on where the money came from for legal fees, but the family managed to send this case through an extended trail of appeals – loosing all the way.
This is of itself tragic, however the political capital Bush, DeLay and company are making of it is disgusting.
|
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Mar 21, 2005 20:29:13 GMT -5
I saw the right-to-lifers demonstrating on TV last night and one of them made a speech in which he said "This woman, who is FULLY alive ..."
Her parents claim that with treatment she will recover completely. I'm not sure what treatment they expect after 15 years.
I understand that medical treatment in USA is prohibitively expensive; who is paying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 21, 2005 23:04:29 GMT -5
It would be just too brutal if it were her estate. End result of that would be that the parents would get their wish: husband wouldn't get a dime, what with the appeals and medical care. 15 years in chronic care can't be cheap!
I just hope to God that the whole thing isn't about money, in the end -- a squabble between heirs rather than between loved ones.
|
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Mar 21, 2005 23:18:53 GMT -5
I understand from another forum that the insurance money went a long time ago, eaten up by medical costs.
It also appears that the husband trained as a nurse to enable him to look after her but now, understandably, he wants to move on.
|
|
pinkozcat
Full Member
Remember - pillage first, THEN burn.
Posts: 233
|
Post by pinkozcat on Mar 21, 2005 23:28:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Wyndham on Mar 23, 2005 9:39:11 GMT -5
Read a set of religious opinions regarding this case, the other day. I don't know why, but its getting alot of play up here where the religious right doesn't have much power, and where, regardless of religion, most of us are pretty much 'grey' on this issue.
Catholics: the thing is clear cut. Life is life. If she can be kept alive, keep her alive. To do otherwise is to play God.
Muslims: how the hell should we know? Case doesn't come up in the Koran. Will consult the hadiths (traditions), talk amongst ourselves, and get back to you in a century or so with the inevitable range for conflicting opinions.
Orthodox Judiasm: the thing is clear cut. Life is life. She doesn't have one. Her intended span has been over for fifteen years. Obviously keeping her alive is an impiety. Pull the plug. To do otherwise is playing God.
As too often, I gotta think the Jews have logic on their side, in this particular case.
|
|
|
|
Post by RobertGraves on Mar 24, 2005 17:03:55 GMT -5
World Bank staff now have the opportunity to post their uncensored views about their probable next chief, Paul Wolfowitz, on an internal electronic message board. That'd make for interesting reading: www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200503/s1331526.htm |
|
|
|
Post by Tenarke on Apr 4, 2005 19:12:26 GMT -5
Last fall our George declared that Iraq was one again a “sovereign” nation. Since then he has been periodically lauding the emergence of the new Iraqi government as both democratic and autonomous.
However; just this week he is going back to congress to ask for an $82 billion nut, over and above his recent budget request. Of this, $600 million will be for a new US Embassy in Baghdad, the biggest US embassy anywhere, the remainder for 14 “enduring” US military bases and still no specific exit strategy to speak of.
Some “sovereignty”!
|
|
|
|
Post by Aravis on Apr 5, 2005 0:06:24 GMT -5
I signed a petition against this request earlier today. At the very least they should be refused money for the embassy. Why not just claim one of Hussein's old palaces? You know they have the power and have been doing similar things already anyway.
They (we, I suppose I should say) need to get us the hell out of there, where we don't belong. Not all at once, because that would be catastrophic at this point. But an exit strategy that is not only conceived but implemented as well is in order.
|
|
