can it be argued that "the state took the life of TS" (as Santorium says)?

These words rlate to the death penalty-and are used in purpose to make that analogy. But is it really so? Or has the state only removed obstacles to let nature take its course.

It's not analagous to the DP at all.

to hear evidence regarding what the afflicted said regarding end of life issues and based on that evidence to make a decision that it believes follows the desires of that afflicted individual.

That is what took place in this case and the evidence presented convinced the court that Mrs. Schiavo would not want useless extrodinary measures taken to prolong hers and her families suffering.

In addition evidence was presented by multiple doctors through multiple means that Mrs. Schiavo was for all intents already dead. In finding this to be the case then there was NO LIFE FOR THE STATE TAKE.

I'd like to ask another question, can it be argued that congress attempted to prolong the suffering of very sick individual for whom no hope for any recovery existed?

.....I'd like to ask another question, can it be argued that congress attempted to prolong the suffering of very sick individual for whom no hope for any recovery existed?.....

sense of pain/discomfort.

Medically speaking, he had more of a right to life--however short it would have been--than Terri did. But his mommy didn't have the scratch...

The funny thing is, I just posted about adding this pic to my server. I figured it would come in handy, but not THIS soon. Well, where is Mrs. Hudson's salvation, Rick?

:headbang:
rocknation

:yourock:

when she told witnesses that she did not want to be kept alive in this condition.

The State was protecting Terry's rights.

whether the state gives sanction for one of it's officials or gives sanction to an independant contractor.

The real question is, how much process does one get for a finding of never-regaining-consciousness or brain dead? If Santorum is correct, it isn't enough even if everyone in the family agrees and there is a living will. You still need a trial, supposedly where a guardian appointed by the court fights it to the bitter end.

That's the issue that never comes up in a death penalty case, where there isn't any issue as to whether he's alive or desires to live.

wishes, and after deliberations, trials, testimonie, they determined that indeed, Terri would not have wanted to live in the condition she was.
Nor do I agree that this case should be likened to the death penalty (in that the State is taking a life). But, we do hear this over and over.

I had a post saying that the Shindlers going to find out first hand what death row inmates know-- the habeus corpus review is limited and almost always futile. It's meant to be, and republicans have been narrowing it for years.

Now Delay is lying to the fundies, telling them that the fed courts were supposed to start from ground zero and throw out all the previous trials. Well, that's NOT what death penalty cases get. They too only get one bite at the apple.

So when there wasn't a new trial, the fundies were pissed at the courts because they didn't rewrite the law actually passed to match Delay and Santorums wild promises to the fundies.

as reflected in the statute of the state of Florida that was applied and enforced by the courts of that state and the United States of America. Used to be that was how a democracy was supposed to work. Apparently not in Tom Delay's version of democracy, though...

onenote

this is what was argued in court after court. Evidence was presented to show that this was her wish and evidence was shown that her condition was extremely severe and would not reverse. Especially to the point where she could never say remove my feeding tube, I don't want to live this way. The Schindler's were provided plenty of oppurtunity to present evidence that she would have wanted to live in a severely brain damaged way for the rest of her life. But the did not convince any of the courts or judges. That's what the system is for, so we aren't shooting each other when we disagree on something.

NGU.

Will he also be charged with murder?

NGU.

Asphyxiate v To suffocate; smother

Asphyxia n Lack of oxygen accompanied by an increase of carbon dioxide in the blood, leading to unconsciousness or death.

Reframe, reframe, reframe.

NGU.

those extremists never miss an opportunity to rub it in -- up close and personal, truth be damned -- "OMG, we wouldn't treat our pets that way" OR "how could you deny food and drink to any human being?"

:rant: oh, those GOPukers!