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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: michael97123 who wrote (159507)3/23/2005 4:54:55 PM
From: GST  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Perhaps the fact that you have no first hand experience with death and the dying makes you write such trite nonsense about this case. Your lack of experience and understanding of this process and the issues it raises are duly noted -- perhaps if you had some direct knowledge of these things you would have a more informed opinion.

This woman should be allowed to die in peace, with her loving husband at her side, quietly and without the indignity of the political circus atmosphere create by the radical "religious" right for their own petty purposes.



To: michael97123 who wrote (159507)3/23/2005 9:39:07 PM
From: Keith Feral  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
I don't get it. We go to ridiculous lengths to protect convicted felons. Why won't we do the same for a woman that was permanently injured in a car accident? She deserves the same rights for food and nutrition as convicted killers. I hope we can get some real tort reform in the US to limit medical malpractice so that doctors can deliver affordable healthcare. It is insane that doctors have to pay $120K per year in malpractice insurance. That damn near wipes out the compensation for family practice doctors in most rural communities. We need to trust the doctors on the basis of good samaritan ideals. Handing the money to an arm of GE that insures against malpractice is certainly not the solution.