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 (105063)	3/20/2005 2:58:45 PM
From: DMaA	Respond to of 793859

Just about everyone who doesn't die instantly in a car accident dies by that definition. You don't like it, get the law changed. I'll fight you.

To: Ilaine who wrote (105063)	3/20/2005 3:07:26 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793859

I would argue that giving disabled persons food and water is a basic human right, and that the failure to do so constitutes a violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act and medical malpractice and murder. CB, this woman is vegetative, not disabled. You know where the law is on vegetative people. The facts in this matter have been argued, settled, and will not change. Arguing them again is a waste of time. If Congress wants to make a federal case out of this, it will extend the case, but it will end up the same way.

To: Ilaine who wrote (105063)	3/20/2005 3:28:27 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793859

So, by definition, Terri is being euthanized. I stand corrected, technically. That's an odd definition. I assume it's a legal liability construct as opposed to a moral or practical construct. The salient moral distinction is whether whatever-we-call-it is voluntary or involuntary. Acceding to a request to not force feed is very different from denying desired nourishment. I would argue that giving disabled persons food and water is a basic human right I would argue, instead, that giving food and water to a disabled person who wants food and water may be a basic human right but forcing it on someone who wants to die is just as much a denial of a basic human right. CB, you seem to be insisting that people eat and live whether they want to or not. I strenuously disagree with that. I understand that this particular case is not a perfect example of that distinction, but the principle is critical.