Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (104894)	3/19/2005 2:39:40 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793955

Haven't seen that movie yet, although know the story line. This Terri Schiavo story really has me torn, though. Since she has lived so long under the present circumstances, I really wonder what is making the push for pulling the plug, so to speak, now...? Why was the Judge so pushed to not honor the Congressional 'request'....? Why pull the tube today? Christopher Reeve was disabled as well....Should we have pulled all the tubes on him? The horrible man who confessed to killing the little girl was on suicide watch today evidently....one part of me wants to ask..."Why bother? Give him the rope" and then leave the room... The sensible part of me says "What are you saying"....

To: Ilaine who wrote (104894)	3/19/2005 2:54:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793955

I admire Clint Eastwood, but in this I believe that he's wrong. The way this was presented it was wrong. From what I have read, if you are on life support, and ask for it to be removed, they are required to remove it. The Eastwood character would never have had to do it. If you are terminal, it is legal to go into a hospice and quit eating and drinking while you take drugs to stop pain, until you die. Usually, they let you take as much drugs as you want so you go fast. The big push on this case is a religious one. Especially from the Catholic church, which doesn't want this to be possible.

To: Ilaine who wrote (104894)	3/19/2005 7:55:01 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

Many years ago I used to audit several old age homes. Observing how SOME patients were treated by their "families" made me realize MANS INHUMANITY TO MAN. Frankly, I dont trust A SINGLE THING Terri's husband (in name only) says. There are too many discrepancies. I cant see why totally IMPARTIAL doctors cannot be brought in, run some modern tests and THEN make a decision backed up with CURRENT MEDICAL SCIENCE. IF she is in a vegatative state, I would have no problem with Euthanasia for her, but there are many doubts in my uninformed mind and I would prefer they be erased. jdn

To: Ilaine who wrote (104894)	3/19/2005 8:38:38 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 793955

People say a lot of things, but when push comes to shove, they don't always stick to what they said in the first place. I have read that people who attempt suicide, and fail, almost universally regretted the attempt immediately after they began it. Dr. Kevorkian killed a lot of people who were merely depressed. I wonder how many of those would have preferred, at the last moment, to live but for his efficiency? Besides being all wrong, it just does not work. They have strong regulation in Holland for assisted suicides: "Physicians know it is dangerous for them to have the power to kill patients. Assisted suicide cannot be regulated or controlled, no matter how many safeguards are built in to protect patients from involuntary euthanasia. The data speaks for itself: one in five cases of assisted suicide occurred in Holland without the patient's consent, and in 17 percent of the cases, other treatment options were available. The survey also revealed that almost two-thirds of the euthanasia cases in 1995 were not reported. With this kind of irresponsibility and neglect, who will ever know what really went on between a doctor and a patient when a patient is dead?" Whether it is the termination of the life of a human in a "vegetable state" or a juvenile because that child committed a horrible crime is unnecessary, wrong, and can not be properly regulated.