Schiavo Debate Relived In Valley

[Psychoblues]

Deja Vu all over again!!!!!!!!




Source: Fresno Bee

Three years after the fight over Terri Schiavo pulled the nation into the end-of-life debate, the case of a comatose Fresno County woman is reopening old wounds -- and could prove even more inflammatory.

The family of Janet Rivera, 46, wants to keep her alive in a Fresno hospital. The county, acting as her legal guardian, wants the issue decided in court.

Among the questions her situation has raised: Should a government agency be able to overrule family members and withhold life support when the patient's wishes are unknown?

The Schiavo family has taken an interest in this case. The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation helped find a lawyer to represent the Rivera family, said Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler............

More: http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/755203.html

Will anyone go to jail? Will this reach the SCOTUS? Will this solve anything?

[actsnoblemartin]

oh god, not again.

the media loves a scandal or a good story.

Bottom line: husband should decide

everyone else should shut the fuck up and butt out.

and i am pro-life

the end

what say you good sir?


Deja Vu all over again!!!!!!!!




Source: Fresno Bee

Three years after the fight over Terri Schiavo pulled the nation into the end-of-life debate, the case of a comatose Fresno County woman is reopening old wounds -- and could prove even more inflammatory.

The family of Janet Rivera, 46, wants to keep her alive in a Fresno hospital. The county, acting as her legal guardian, wants the issue decided in court.

Among the questions her situation has raised: Should a government agency be able to overrule family members and withhold life support when the patient's wishes are unknown?

The Schiavo family has taken an interest in this case. The Terri Schindler Schiavo Foundation helped find a lawyer to represent the Rivera family, said Schiavo's brother, Bobby Schindler............

More: http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/755203.html

Will anyone go to jail? Will this reach the SCOTUS? Will this solve anything?

[crin63]

I think it's a shame that cameras were not allowed into the hospital to see how Terri Schiavo was really doing. I also think her parents should have been able to take over the care for their daughter.

There is also the question as to how she ended up in the shape she was in. Didn't the parents think the husband had strangled her?

[Psychoblues]

I agree with what you say, marteen. It is a personal and PRIVATE decision to be made by her family. Period. Full Stop.



oh god, not again.

the media loves a scandal or a good story.

Bottom line: husband should decide

everyone else should shut the fuck up and butt out.

and i am pro-life

the end

what say you good sir?

[actsnoblemartin]

private is the key word, this isnt really about schiavo.

this is about the government staying out of the personal decisions of families

and i wish it would end h.i.p.p.a. its a disaster and a joke


I agree with what you say, marteen. It is a personal and PRIVATE decision to be made by her family. Period. Full Stop.

[Hobbit]

Psycho, Martin, did either of you take the time to RTFA? It's not a fight between the family and the husband. It's a fight between the family and the COUNTY. The family wants her kept alive. The county, which has taken custody of the girl, wants to unplug her. It's shaky when, amidst shady circumstances like in the Shiavo case, the husband is allowed to keep her locked up and then pull the plug, but it's still not a bad ruling, in the end. Here, a government is holding the life of an innocent civilian in its hands, and taking the family to court to overturn their wishes. Whether the family wants to sustain or unplug the person is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the f-ing GOVERNMENT is taking the power of life and death as part of its duties.

[actsnoblemartin]

what?

really?

in that case, the government should NOT be involved and the family should make the decision.

I have a hard time with this, because while, the husband is legally first chooser, if i were the husband, i would allow the family to keep her alive, i think that is morally the right thing to do

thanks for clearing that up


Psycho, Martin, did either of you take the time to RTFA? It's not a fight between the family and the husband. It's a fight between the family and the COUNTY. The family wants her kept alive. The county, which has taken custody of the girl, wants to unplug her. It's shaky when, amidst shady circumstances like in the Shiavo case, the husband is allowed to keep her locked up and then pull the plug, but it's still not a bad ruling, in the end. Here, a government is holding the life of an innocent civilian in its hands, and taking the family to court to overturn their wishes. Whether the family wants to sustain or unplug the person is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the f-ing GOVERNMENT is taking the power of life and death as part of its duties.

[Psychoblues]

Yes, hibbit, I RTFA. Attempting to get a credible conversation going about it is not proving so productive however, your response notwithstanding.




Psycho, Martin, did either of you take the time to RTFA? It's not a fight between the family and the husband. It's a fight between the family and the COUNTY. The family wants her kept alive. The county, which has taken custody of the girl, wants to unplug her. It's shaky when, amidst shady circumstances like in the Shiavo case, the husband is allowed to keep her locked up and then pull the plug, but it's still not a bad ruling, in the end. Here, a government is holding the life of an innocent civilian in its hands, and taking the family to court to overturn their wishes. Whether the family wants to sustain or unplug the person is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the f-ing GOVERNMENT is taking the power of life and death as part of its duties.

The gov't takes the power of life and death as it's duties all the time, hibbit. They've been doing it for as long as there has been a government and I don't think it is going to change in this century. Surprise me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hobbit]

Yes, hibbit, I RTFA. Attempting to get a credible conversation going about it is not proving so productive however, your response notwithstanding.





The gov't takes the power of life and death as it's duties all the time, hibbit. They've been doing it for as long as there has been a government and I don't think it is going to change in this century. Surprise me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're sick. Anybody who thinks that the government has always held as its power the right of euthanasia OVER the objection of a family without probably cause is delusional. Anybody who thinks they should have that power should be locked up and never allowed near a polling booth for the rest of their lives.

[Psychoblues]

There you go, hibbit, attributing things to me that I never said. You are the sick one in this conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!




You're sick. Anybody who thinks that the government has always held as its power the right of euthanasia OVER the objection of a family without probably cause is delusional. Anybody who thinks they should have that power should be locked up and never allowed near a polling booth for the rest of their lives.

I said the gov't has been taking the power of life and death for as long as there has been a gov't. If you have somethiong to prove that statement wrong then please share it with us, OK? If we decide as a population or a family to give our rights over to the gov't for the purpose of euthanasia or to just allow someone to expire on their own is the question here. The fact that our gov't has been taking lives for centuries is not debatable. It has. Do we extend that right or squelch it or eliminate it altogether? At some point a decision will be made and laws will be changed. That also is a nondebatable given.

[crin63]

The government should not be involved in these type of life and death situations.

Maybe I missed it. Who's paying the medical bills?

[Hobbit]

There you go, hibbit, attributing things to me that I never said. You are the sick one in this conversation!!!!!!!!!!!!!





I said the gov't has been taking the power of life and death for as long as there has been a gov't. If you have somethiong to prove that statement wrong then please share it with us, OK? If we decide as a population or a family to give our rights over to the gov't for the purpose of euthanasia or to just allow someone to expire on their own is the question here. The fact that our gov't has been taking lives for centuries is not debatable. It has. Do we extend that right or squelch it or eliminate it altogether? At some point a decision will be made and laws will be changed. That also is a nondebatable given.

What is not debatable is that the government shouldn't have the power to just pull the plug and kill somebody. You seem to treat it as business as usual. Worse yet, you see it as a political, rather than a human rights issue.

[DragonStryk72]

But this family has not given over that right, the government has assumed that right. They have decided what is best for that family, against their wishes.

People have an inherent right to life, as the 9th amendment points out, as well as a right to privacy, especially in medical matters, by the 4th amendment. Now, the 1st says "shall not be deprived of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process", but, since it is not the government's right to kill innocent citizens, makes this a case of undue process.

In the presence of undue process, the government is showing itself unreliable in this matter, and should have its custodial point revoked, points it never should have had in the first place. The government is not built to watch over individual lives. Were there to be a living will in place with a DNR, then yes, the government has the obligation to honor the woman's wishes, and pull the plug. That's her right, and her choice was already made.

Now, in this case, no such thing exists, and the family apparently is willing to fight for their daughter's life, and thus, the government should be stepping back and leaving it to the family. I am also just guessing here, but I'm willing to bet good money that the family knows their daughter better than the local government does, you know, having raised her and all.

[Psychoblues]

You're dumber than usual tonight, hibbit. I haven't said or intimated anything of the sort. You are the one trying to get political here as I haven't mentioned politics at all!!!!!!!!!!!!




What is not debatable is that the government shouldn't have the power to just pull the plug and kill somebody. You seem to treat it as business as usual. Worse yet, you see it as a political, rather than a human rights issue.

Go ahead, cowgirl!!!!!!!! Where will your feeble lying mind lead you now?

Just for your information which I seriously doubt that you can understand, hospitals pull the plugs on dying patients everyday with and without permission from anyone. As I have stated earlier in this thread I think the family if there is a family should have the last say so but allowing patients to expire is a daily occurance in most large hospitals and it is normally done without fanfare or public scrutiny.

I think this debate is more far reaching than you can comprehend, hibbit.

[PostmodernProphet]

so very important for unmarried persons over the age of 18 to have either a living will or a healthcare power of attorney, whichever their state recognizes.....

[Psychoblues]

'Zactly, pmp.



so very important for unmarried persons over the age of 18 to have either a living will or a healthcare power of attorney, whichever their state recognizes.....

Adherence to that single principle pretty much puts this entire quandry to rest, doesn't it?