|user created polls & quizzes|
The republicans are doing this because they see this as a way of getting their voting base fired up. Their talking points basically say that very thing. They know this law will be thrown out as unstitutional. You can't make a law about one person it negates due process for all people.
I think that Terry Schiavo should be allowed to die with dignity instead of being basically whored out by neo cons who want their agenda to get noticed.
I think her husband has dubious motives. He is engaged to antother woman, but can't marry because he is still married to Terri and...there is some large sum of money coming his way from a malpractice suit...but not while Terri lives. I think she should be kept alive...she looks totally alive! It is heart breaking :( Mojo makes a great point though...what about everyone else in the same circumstance?? This is a real tough one and an emotional one too. I just hope that the people involved have Terri in mind (I know her parents and siblings do)
Double standard. George W. Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week.
Patch, I believe he already recieved the money. There was a dispute over sharing the money between the husband and parents.
Judge Greer found that the Schindler's financial motivations were just as conflicted as those of Michael Schiavo. Michael was awarded $300,000 for his own loss, and the Schindlers demanded that he share it. The money was paid out in February 1993. Schiavo and the Schindlers last spoke on February 14 of that year. Judge Greer wrote that that the Schindlers fell out with Schiavo over Michael's share of the malpractice settlement.
Interesting to see Bush's flip-flopping on this ... Bush signed a law in Texas that expressly gave hospitals the right to remove life support if the patient could not pay and there was no hope of revival, regardless of the patient's family's wishes. It is called the Texas Futile Care Law. Under this law, a baby was removed from life support against his mother's wishes in Texas just this week. A 68 year old man was given a temporary reprieve by the Texas courts just yesterday.
I guess it's only bad to remove someone when they have money to pay for it.
Bush and Mr. Schiavo are one in the same. There are children going to bed in America hungry and filtering through inadequate school systems that ill prepares them for the future, there are people dying of Aids, there are children dying because of poor or lack of heathcare and not to mention through the acts of violence attributed to crime, abuse, drugs, suicide, and through other means created by the adults in their environment. I believe that Ms. Schiavo should be allowed to live and her husband who has a girlfriend and a couple of children by this woman should not be making medical decision on her behalf, let alone making the ultimate decision whether she should live or be put to death. Those Politians who found it necessary to take on this matter should use the same vigor and zeal to address those matters I touched upon. The hypocrisy is alive and well in Washington, I only hope that, the members who voted on this measure will be opened to be as compassionate to others who are also in need of their attention and will receive prompt resolutions to their concerns as did Ms. Schiavo and rightfully so.
Michael Shiavo had to initially agree to have this feeding tube inserted-and pay for it, so it isn't the same situation.
I have found the perfect example of this hypocrisy. Rep. Tom Delay who is the big blowhard in this whole situation was faced with a similar situation with his own family. Doctors told him that his father would be a vegetable and he and his family pulled the respirator and other life support. So I guess suffocating to death is less severe than starving.