Bush signs emergency law to preempt state courts ref Terry Schiavo

[Patroklos]

If he's merely enforcing some antiquated and unjust law, then merely .

Thats what the husband is doing. I will remember how you sticklers for the word of the law reacted here the next time you supposed communist revolutionaries get up on your soap box.

[chequita guevara]

Which communist revolutionaries are doing that?

[Whaleboy]

Thats what the husband is doing. I will remember how you sticklers for the word of the law reacted here the next time you supposed communist revolutionaries get up on your soap box.

I think communism is second in ridiculum only to patriotism.

As for the word of law, it would truly suck if some Christian agenda is being enforced above the law, at least laws are easier to change than the minds of the dogmatic.

If the law gives the next of kin the right to decide when to let the patient die, and her request can be verified, then I see no problem here if we agree that euthanasia is ok.

[Patroklos]

and her request can be verified

It can not.

[Whaleboy]

Then the family's wish to keep her alive wins by default, unless the woman herself is able to communicate her wish to die.

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, as Imran pointed out, the LAW says the husband is responsible as her guardian, not her parents, unless she left a Living Will stating otherwise. Since she did not, it all defaults to her. I have left the decision split between my wife, who is a little bit on the soft side, and my sister, the one who is burned and lost her husband. She will be very quick to pull the plug. Between them they will negotiate the best for me if I am unable.

What is fascinating is that a purely internal state matter is being over-ridden by the same party (Republicans for you non-US posters) that claims to be upholding States Rights. There is, to put it kindly, a bit of mismatch there. To put it not so kindly, it is pure hippocracy and grandstanding.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc

To put it not so kindly, it is pure hippocracy and grandstanding.

Gentlemen and ladies, the President and First Lady :

[Patroklos]

What is fascinating is that a purely internal state matter is being over-ridden by the same party

Inconsistant on one issue, very consistant on another.

I for one am glad the Republicans are not so attached to their States rights position that they cannot flex. I am a proponent of states rights too, but doesn't mean that because I belive that I am okay with a state deciding to kill innocent people, and if you believe that then how could you not do everything in your power to stop it. Not THAT would be hypocrisy.

[Whaleboy]

Is it the state killing her, or something more akin to suicide? What is your position on suicide in that respect, and assuming one consents of sound mind, what of those who may assist?

[Patroklos]

Of course that is the problem with this there are so many questions and nobody agrees on the answers.

On Hypocrisy:

This is why I prefer smaller parties in coalistion instead of large hegemons. Currenty poth political parties are such amalgamation of views and opinions that no matter what issue they take they are truning their backs on a portion of themselves.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Don't think the president should have become involved. I don't know much about this situation, I don't really care for it because it doesn't seem very important. A woman is a vegetable, the husband claims she gave him permission to let her die or perform euthanasia which he intends to do, whereas her family wants her to keep living?

Tough one. Philosophically speaking I'd leave it in the hands of the doctors. Legally I suppose it must rest with the next of kin. If her request was false then obviously the husband shouldn't be allowed to get his way.

Eh, except that the husband is the legal guardian, not the doctors. It's not even a philosophical issue, it's a legal one. And the doctors are the one who proclaim her in a vegetative state anyway.

[Imran Siddiqui]

molly:



Probably smarter than the current Prez as well .

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I for one am glad the Republicans are not so attached to their States rights position that they cannot flex.

It's not just state rights; it's the federal government trying to intervene in a court case in progress! If that's not a huge extension of federal powers, I don't know what is.

I am a proponent of states rights too, but doesn't mean that because I belive that I am okay with a state deciding to kill innocent people, and if you believe that then how could you not do everything in your power to stop it. Not THAT would be hypocrisy.

[chequita guevara]

Congress has the right to get involved with the courts. I'm not so much pissed at Congress for extending its authority, as I am for it's interfering in a single family's private affair solely for the purpose of rallying its fundi base.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Congress has the right to get involved with the courts.

Not in this manner.