the right to die

[tipsy88]

http://apnews1.iwon.com//article/20031021/D7UAPK800.html?PG=home&SEC=news

roar! i totally disagree with these lawmakers stepping in to do what is "right".

[Benwa]

What is everyones big deal about death. It is a guarantee, a constant, a law of nature. Life cannot exist without death. Death brings life, its a univeral truth. But apparently it is now illegal to die. Yeah Jeb Bush found a loophole. Simply say it and it happens! Next up, the law of gravity. We won't need planes, we can just hop to australia.

What horrible thing to turn the death of a loved one into such a fiasco. What are the radical religious folk scared of, she's going to die and go to heaven. Man wouldn't that be a bitch. "You're just going to have to wait for your eternal bliss missy. I want to use you as a political chesspiece." Except a chess piece probably has more brain activity. I think they should wheel her over to Jeb's place and make him take care of her. Turning her every few hours to prevent bed sores, bathing her, wiping her butt (if she isn't on a colostamy), checking her meds, gazing into the face of a shell. At least send him the hospital bills. If your going to be all high and mighty, don't puss out when it comes to seeing it through all the way.

[dakotagopher]

I think the issue has nothing to do with Death itself.

Has to do with the way Death would take this poor woman. I wouldn't condemn my worst enemy to death by starvation.

Were she, for example, on a ventilator and it was a matter of pulling a plug and waiting 3 minutes for her to pass away, this would not be an issue. Happens every day.

It was going to take her over a week to slowy die of starvation. I don't care how brain dead you are, that is no way to go. that is the issue here.

Rotten situation all around for everyone involved.

[tipsy88]

I disagree, i don't think the issue is how she's going to die. Her parents would of fighted regardless on how quickly or slowly after she would be removed from life support.

The real problem is that you have two types of family members who want to see different things. How do you usually resolve such differences, the court does.

Unfortunately in this case the higer courts refused to rule on something that has been already looked at. What's worst the sympatheic pleas has made the government overstep its bounds and adjudicate over this case where it does not have the authority to do so.

So much media is focus on her parents, her husband, and the government. You think dying by starvation is a horrible way to die, what about living one a feeding tube, and having your life decided by a group of strangers you don't even know, and having your husband/wife fight with your parents on whether you want to live. That sounds like a horrible way to live.

[Maraschinored]

I think the poor woman has a right to die in dignity. Her family just can't let go and want to keep stringing her along, for what? Her husband wants to do what was her wish and then move on with his life. I think everyone in this situation is thinking more about themselves than they are about this woman. People die. Bury her, cry, and then move on!

[cheetah]

I agree with tipsy.

dakotagopher, many medical professionals have testified that starvation for this woman would not be painful. I realize you wouldn't want to starve, but she has no ability to feel pain, and if doctors testify that it is not a cruel way to die, why would you think differently? Many, many PVS patients die this way. Most are not as controversial as this case because 1) the families don't always disagree so violently and 2) if the patient has a legal advance directive in place about this, there is even less room to argue. Sadly, there are still cases in which the patient's wishes are transparently clear and still some "do-gooder" tries to prevent their death. If I was in the state and could come back from the dead, I would kick that person's ass!!

Anyway, I find it highly ironic that Republicans are backing this. Isn't this marriage protection week? Yet they are fine with stripping the husband of his right to make this decision on behalf of his wife? They are fine with overturning the courts, who backed him as the guardian? Very hypocritical. it's like, "Marriage is sacred and we want to encourage it and give it benefits and allow it to flourish unless of course the people in the marriage do something we don't personally like, or the people who want to marry are people we don't personnally like."

[dakotagopher]

Cheetah - i think the intent of the thread was to criticize legislatures for stepping in to this affair (i could be wrong).

what i was saying is that I don't think the legislature would've intervened had the woman not faced death by starvation.

Also, i've seen a couple of talking heads now that have said they think she would have felt the pain of starvation........even if they're in the minority, & possibly wrong, do we dare gamble?

Again, if it was a matter of pulling the plug on the respirator & waiting 3 mintues for brain activity to cease, i don't think this would be on the agenda at all. Death by Starvation is the reason this is a big story, in my opinion.

[lostindc]

Originally posted by WeirdBrake
The situation is even worse when people are dying of terminal illnesses. In my opinion, such people, if they choose, should be allowed to end their lives painlessly, even if it requires that the doctor actively inject the patient with a quick-acting lethal poison. Simply "withdrawing" treatment in cases of a terminal illness often inevitably leads to a slower and more painful death.

I find it ironic that the patient would have to commit a capital offence before this could legally occur . . .

[lostindc]

I also find it ironic that the Bush administration cites the sanctitiy of life as the reason for hampering stem cell research that could lead to discovering successful treatments for many diseases.