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: Lane3 who wrote (105701)	3/24/2005 8:21:29 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793706

Right now it seems to me that the core is what her wishes were. The default at this point, since it has been so ruled and affirmed many times, is that her wishes were to not live this way of course that judgement was made based on hearsay evidence we don't convict, sentence and execute criminals in this country on that basis

To: Lane3 who wrote (105701)	3/24/2005 8:22:26 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793706

Right now it seems to me that the core is what her wishes were. The default at this point, since it has been so ruled and affirmed many times, is that her wishes were to not live this way. If you operate from that basis, then the courts would be depriving her of her rights if they restored the feeding tube. What needs to be studied de novo is whether that ruling about her wishes is correct and to buy enough time to study that, you'd have to deprive her of her rights as they now stand. Catch-22. That is probably the best summary of where we are at. I have not followed this case at all, but what you say sounds right to me. But, I don't see the Catch 22. What is the rush to pull the plug immediately? Find out what her intentions were. If it is unclear, she lives. What's the big controversy?