Is it legal to deprive someone of food?
how is that a good way to force someone to die?
Is that a picture of a vegetable?
Sure looks like an awake, responsive person to me. Perhaps a person who is not entirely functioning, but who surely is responding to the person she is looking at.
She is Terri Schiavo.
This case puzzles the hell outta me. How could/would any court *not* step in and give custody to her parents?!? She is demonstrably responsive. She is a Catholic who attended church regularly—without that abomination she married. That satisfactorily addresses her feelings on the sanctity of life issue—Catholicism has pretty clear views.
The thieving wannabe-murderer she is married to already spent the money designated for her rehab—like relearning to eat solid foods. They don’t even know if she can swallow—and the doctors won’t try “for fear she will choke and die.” *irony alert*
Several doctors have testified in court that she is a good candidate to relearn to eat normally. So without even knowing if she can eat, without giving her the opportunity to relearn to eat—they want to deprive her of food.
Her “husband” spent her rehab money on legal fees trying to get her killed!
There are so many little bits and pieces to this case: Terri had several broken bones, undiagnosed at her initial admission to the hospital. When they were diagnosed, the comment of the doctor reading the scans was that she had apparently taken “a hell of a beating.” Her “husband,” Michael, was already paying child support for one child conceived outside their “marriage.” Michael now has another woman and two children with whom he is living as a “family.” [poor kids...] The signals go on and on.
Why haven’t any key questions been asked? Apparently, Michael has a little pal—one Judge Greer who seems to have a hard o... mission to deprive Terri of her life. He has ruled time and again to prevent her rehabilitation and prevent proper medical care.
Food and water are not “heroic artificial means” of keeping someone alive. How could a court possibly rule to deprive someone of food?
Dang! If’n new wifey pisses off wannabe-murderer, will he get cops to prevent her from going into the kitchen? Only if she comes by some $$$ I reckon.
Now that all Terri’s money is spent and gone to legal fees—why is Michael still trying to kill Terri?!? Whatinhell does he care? Why not just get a divorce and go away?
Perhaps a test of Michael’s true motivations would be to start a donation drive: “Pay Michael to Let Terri Alone.” When donations hit a coupla million—would he take the money and run? If not—what is the real dealio? Is there something Terri knows that, with rehab, she might divulge? Is he just that hate-filled? Do the words “Scott Peterson” make him dampen his drawers?
More wide-reaching is the issue of the Law in this case. I have no comprehension of the technical ins and outs, and I know that the SCOTUS can only address questions in particular ways, but there is still the larger question. Somewhere, somehow, it is the responsibility of the Law to protect those who cannot protect themselves—is it not? And if Terri’s family is willing and able to continue her care howinhell can the law force her death?!? And force it in such a “cruel and unusual” manner?
This case stinks.
ThanQ! Mo
*clap**clap**clap*
Very Well said indeed!Posted by MoFiZiX Gr4FiX on 01/25/05 at 04:26 PM
Next entry: Hillary Knows *I* Qualify....
Previous entry: Trackback Query?
