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: KLP who wrote (106082)	3/26/2005 2:18:46 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

There is a good deal of difference in those two cases There are, indeed, differences. And there are similarities. No way does a distinction between instruments of life support trumps the similarities. Bush will be criticized. No matter what. Period. I'll grant you that. I am not focusing on Bush. I'm more interested in the folks outside Terri's hospice and their brethren who have no apparent interest in Sun and all the other Suns. [BTW, I posted that because it was fisked as a Fox distortion, favorable to Bush. Didn't post the fisk, though, since I didn't buy it.]

To: KLP who wrote (106082)	3/26/2005 2:23:04 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793897

Apparently, under Florida law the cases are similar. Artificial nutrition is as much artificial life support as is a ventilator. From the Wolfson report: The current, generally accepted applications to terminal illness or persistent vegetative state define artificial feeding as artificial life support that may be withheld or withdrawn. In 1989, the Florida Legislature permitted the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration under very specific circumstances. In 1999, following extensive bipartisan efforts, life-prolonging procedures were redefined as “any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function.” It is noteworthy that the general principle of artificial nutrition as artificial life support that may be removed in terminal and even vegetative state conditions is reflected in nearly all state’s laws and within the guidelines of end of life care enunciated by the American Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious denominations.