SI
SI
discoversearch

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: carranza2 who wrote (105214)3/21/2005 2:12:16 PM
From: Thomas A Watson  Respond to of 793955
 
I have read very similar to what you have posted. I believe you are correct. It's that damn figruative. This sad case deals with precise definitions. She is not clinically brain dead. She is not in a literal vegetative state or coma.

The law deals with exact at times and the unintended or intended consequence is ambiguity and is debated. There is a fight over moving the line of ambiguity. There is a fight because of the unintended or intended consequences. There is a fight because of the percieved unintended or intended consequences.



To: carranza2 who wrote (105214)3/21/2005 5:38:41 PM
From: jrhana  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793955
 
I am extremely disappointed in George Bush here. I feel he let us all down. He must know this is ridiculous. The amount of money spent in this country on hopeless cases (running the entire gamut from the very very premature births to the very ancient) is just an astronomical waste of resources. Throwing all this money away accomplishes nothing except to prolong suffering.

This should be a matter between the patient (if able to participate), the nearest kin, and the physician. Lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public should not be involved. It is none of their business.

What should be done is have two physicians certify that a case is hopeless. Then have it pass through an ethics committee. Nothing more. We must end this absurd madness.