Rush sounds defensive
 

His listeners don't agree with him, so he told them to listen to
somebody else.

But he's never been any good on moralizing, as to theory or as to
entertainment value.

Either he gets over it or his show ends.

It's about marriage, not about killing, Rush.

A spouse is better than a living will because the spouse can
take into account the circumstances. You don't have to write
in advance something that takes everything possible into account
because the spouse uses their judgment from your indications.

Unless courts don't listen to spouses but rather to anybody
who claims they know better, which is what did not happen here, yet.

It's a possibility that your spouse is a rotten cad and won't
take your wishes into account right, but the commitment is made
precisely in spite of that possibility, and that is its value.

Which is affirmed, as things stand, and as Rush, twice divorced,
deplores.

So he'll have an unlistenable show for a while.

--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Sorry, that posted to the wrong group.

magic of netscape 4.0

alt.fan.don-imus was intended.
--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Ron Hardin wrote:

Sorry, that posted to the wrong group.

magic of netscape 4.0

alt.fan.don-imus was intended.

actually netscape 2.0 for news.

If you click on a group, and it's not done loading groups (out of view),
the group you clicked will change as you click it to a random group
you subscribe to, so you might post anywhere if you don't notice.
--
Ron Hardin


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Wed 23 Mar 2005 12:20:53p, Ron Hardin wrote
in
message :

His listeners don't agree with him, so he told them to listen to
somebody else.

But he's never been any good on moralizing, as to theory or as to
entertainment value.

Either he gets over it or his show ends.

It's about marriage, not about killing, Rush.


Opinions vary. But you are free to choose death over life and justify it
in
any way that helps you feel more at ease with your decision. As for me and
mine, unless it can not possibly be avoided any longer, we will *always*
choose life over death when an innocent is involved.


This is one circumstance in which I am 100% in agreement with Bush and the
CONgress. Always err on the side of life.

My main question to Mr. Schaivo would be.... if it really was Terri's wish
not to be kept alive "artificially", then why did it take so long for him to
decide to honor her wish? Surely this thing hasn't been in court the entire
15 years??

I really think you guys involved in this thread need to read this. I
normally dislike blogs, but this one's a bit different.

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html

Here's a couple of quotes from there to whet your appetite.

quote

The facts of this case are terribly sad, but they are not hard to
understand. There's really nothing to be confused about, and as best I can
tell, nothing's been overlooked by anyone. Terri's situation has arguably
received more judicial attention, more medical attention, more executive
attention, and more "due process," than any other guardianship case in
history. Terri's family has had the benefit of excellent legal
representation as well as the Governor's own top-notch attorneys, all of
whom have scoured the case for ways to assist the effort to keep Terri's
feeding tube in place.

end quote

And here's interesting quote number two:

quote

Why did Terri’s husband get to make the decision about whether she should
live or die?

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging
measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate
decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that
produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the
proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure
permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can
petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and
determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on
statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri
would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the
position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this
procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is
what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were
given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those
views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear
and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in
civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue
life-prolonging measures.

end quote

What I like about this guy's site, which bills itself as "The first weblog
devoted to Florida law and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals", is this
quote:

"I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial decisions
that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point of view, are
Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions."

And of course, he provides those documents for you to read. I wonder how
many people in this country talking about this issue have bothered to look
at these documents.

No I don't.

Be sure to click on the "Home Page" link. There are more links to the legal
documents there.

I see the force of the considerations on both sides of this one. No
parent wants to bury their child. The heartbreak has to be unbearable.
At the same time, I actually have a 'living will' precisely because, if
I'm ever in a permanent vegetative state, I don't want to continue
indefinitely in such a condition, and I'd have real trouble resigning a
loved one to such a fate.

I feel bad for everyone involved in this case. There are no winners.

Steve

JD,

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
JD,
.
Her "Questionable Accident" had the Police initially
looking at the Husband as the possible Criminal 'cause'
of the Injuries to the Wife.

Not true. There was no questionable accident. The cause of her death has
clearly been established in a court of law, and there was a malpractive
judgement awarded based on those findings. The issue of of abuse did -not-
come up during the trial, simply because it wasn't an issue. You can bet
your ass that if there was even the remotest chance that her situation was
caused by abuse rather than malpractice it would have come up. It didn't.
The abuse thing appears to be nothing more than attempts to demonize the
husband.

If as reported HE has a long term common-law wife and
a couple of children.

He does.

Then... Why Not ? Do the Right Thing and Let the Parents
take responsibility for their Daughter.

Because the way he sees it, his first wife is for all intents and purposes
dead. Just because he's with another woman doesn't mean that he no longer
loves Terry any more than it means that a remarried widower no longer holds
any affection for his first wife. It's been established repeatedly that
Terry wouldn't have wanted to "live" like this, and he feels obligated to
honor her feelings. It's quit simple, really. Quit listening to nuts like
Al. They're the ones making this stuff up. (Come on...the latest story is
that when they went to remove the tube, she cried out "I want to live!"
Someone here recently mentioned that they'd heard that on SW. I've seen it
elsewhere as well.) Don't listen to Al, and certainly don't assume that I'm
right. Try to go to primary sources for your info. As for doing the "right
thing", her father said in court that he'd keep her alive even if it meant
losing all of her limbs (a reference to her diabetes) and keeping her on a
respirator. This, despite the fact that, as established by the courts, she
wouldn't have wanted to be kept alive as she is...much less in a worse
condition. (Look it up.) He's -doing- the right thing.

It seems like the Husband is afraid to let his Wife be
Revived; because She just may 'implicated' Him as
"The Cause of Her Accident.

Again, it's already been established beyond any doubt. Furthermore,
she -can't- be revived because the relevant part of her brain is -gone-. It
no longer exists. It died during her heart attack, atrophied away and has
been replaced by spinal fluid. No one's ever grown a new brain before, which
is the miracle that people are praying for and want to keep her alive for.
If she could be revived, this whole thing wouldn't be an issue. In fact,
we'd have never heard about it.

That's all just as questionable as what her "true wishes" are. I don't
really consider those suspicions. I only know that as long as the
option
remains for an innocent, I would choose life.

-=jd=-



I would too, *so long as* life looks to be the best of the two
alternatives. I think that which is preferable in Terri's case can only
be discovered by (1) medical science and (2) the best account we can
find of what her wishes were.

Steve

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Thu 24 Mar 2005 10:24:54p, "Honus"
wrote in message news:awL0e.10339$Ax.9226@trnddc04:

{snippage}

What I like about this guy's site, which bills itself as "The first
weblog devoted to Florida law and the Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals", is this quote:

"I encourage anyone interested in this case to read the judicial
decisions that have been entered. Most informative, from a factual point
of view, are Judge Greer's orders and the Second District's decisions."

And of course, he provides those documents for you to read. I wonder how
many people in this country talking about this issue have bothered to
look at these documents.

No I don't.


I have read that site and avialable court and medical documents that have
found their way onto the net. With the information available, my position
and thoughts remain the same. There is conflicting hear-say and anecdotal
evidence as to her wishes. The only determination that can be made is "who
do you personally find more believable".

I don't agree. That's what we have courts for. I don't need to personally
worry about who's more believeable. I can trust an impartial judge to do his
job. For that matter, I can trust any number of impartial judges to do their
jobs. This case has been before how many jurists? Plenty...and they all
agree.

I don't know who to believe. In
which case, I would *always* err on the side of caution and life. After
all, they aren't trying to decide what clothes they want to wear today, it
is literally a life and death decision. There are close family members who
are ready, willing and able to provide for all her needs that would
relieve
the husband of any further responsibility or burdensome commitment.

I don't think that's his issue, otherwise he'd have given her over to them.
This is about what she wanted. If she did indeed voice her opinion about
this to him and other people, it'd go a long ways towards explaining what
he's doing, don't you agree?

With
that option remaining, the choice made was to starve her to death. And the
liberal-left is revelling in that death. That's pretty messed-up in my
opinion...

It -would- be extremely messed-up, but I sure don't see anyone reveling in
this. It's a horrible situation, period, and that's the one thing that I see
universal agreement about.

"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 25 Mar 2005 10:16:59a, "Honus"
wrote in message news:LXV0e.24540$oa6.9834@trnddc07:

{snippage}

Again, it's already been established beyond any doubt.

That's incorrect as well - It has been established by a "preponderance of
the evidence", which is all that is required in a civil trial. In other

I don't know what's up, but you are -seriously- misquoting me! This is the
relevant passage:


RHF said:

It seems like the Husband is afraid to let his Wife be
Revived; because She just may 'implicated' Him as
"The Cause of Her Accident.

And I replied:

Again, it's already been established beyond any doubt. Furthermore,
she -can't- be revived because the relevant part of her brain is -gone-.

What I said has nothing to do with her wishes. What's up?

words, the judge found one side of the argument as more credible that the
other. The Judge felt the evidence was 51% (or more) in favor of the
husband. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt were required this would never
have been settled. The only evidence offered at the time was witness
anecdotes. "He said -- she said" type of accounts. That was all determined
at some point in the past. Since that time, the conflicting accounts that
were raised in that proceeding have been joined by other conflicting
accounts. However, to the husband's relief, the Judge has refused to hear
anyone else's anecdotal account relating to her "wishes". It's all rather
sad, actually.

That's untrue. The matter was addressed in court, and both sides had the
opportunity to present their sides. Furthermore, I wouldn't characterize
this as He said She said. It appears to me, and I could very easily be
mistaken, that it's a case of "She said" vs. "She never said anything about
it to me". (I haven't heard anyone claim that she ever stated she wanted be
be kept alive by heroic measures.) I think it's an important difference. As
for the "preponderance of evidence" the judge in his written order (which
was upheld on appeal) used the term "clear and convincing evidence". I'm no
lawyer, and perhaps there's no difference between the terms, legally. But it
sure sounds like it to me. It's an interesting question; I wonder if they
are two different standards?

Furthermore,
she -can't- be revived because the relevant part of her brain is -gone-.
It no longer exists. It died during her heart attack, atrophied away and
has been replaced by spinal fluid. No one's ever grown a new brain
before, which is the miracle that people are praying for and want to
keep her alive for. If she could be revived, this whole thing wouldn't
be an issue. In fact, we'd have never heard about it.

IIRC, when her husband took her to Calif for some type of experimental or
otherwise risky procedure, she developed an infection after electrodes
were
implanted in her brain. The sum total result of all the damage is a severe
case of hydroencephaly (sp?) where spinal fluid began building in her
head.
It's my understanding that where a large majority of her brain used to be,
there is now empty space filled by spinal fluid.

Be that as it may, she still can survive without benefit of artificial
respiration or cardiac stimulation. If her parents are willig to assume
full responsibility for her health and welfare, than I see no credible,
valid, humane reason to deny that option. If the option remains available,
I always choose life over death for an innocent.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate the gracious
way in which you've chosen to discuss it. (Other than that quoting anomaly.)

HONUS,

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
HONUS,
.
"There was no questionable accident.
The cause of her death has clearly been established in a court of law,"
.
So in your mind she has been dead for all these years.

No, that was a typo on my part. You could call it Freudian, though.

snip

where there is life - there is hope ~ RHF

Sure. http://www.miketheheadlesschicken.org/

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
JD - Where There Is Life - There Is Hope - Keep Hope Alive ~ RHF

That is one of the most ignorant, unfeeling things I've ever heard you say.
I'd hate to be your dog.

"RHF" wrote in message
oups.com...
Honus - Freudian Slip -or- Courting The Truth !
.
Judge Not - Least You Be Judged : Dead Before Arrival ~ RHF

I really do wish you'd learn to speak English.

"Greg" wrote in message
...

snip

in similar conditions, except in Texas, where then Gov. George W. Bush
signed a law that allows hospitals to make these decisions regardless of
the
families' (or patients') wishes.

You know, I keep reading that but I heard on the radio that the law he
signed included guardians, in the following order: Spouses, adult children,
and then the parents. IOW if there's no spouse, the decision is up to the
adult children, if there's no adult children, then the parents have their
say. All of that is of course with the concurrence of a doctor. Do you have
an easy to cite source at hand for any of this? I'd like to get the straight
scoop. Searching for stuff on this case is getting harder and harder; one of
these days, it's going to be called the blogernet instead of the internet.

I heard it on the radio, but it was MW...so we're probably not back on
topic. ;)

From: "Honus"
Organization: Death to Spammers
Reply-To: "Honus"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:48:07 GMT
Subject: Rush sounds defensive


"Greg" wrote in message
...

snip

in similar conditions, except in Texas, where then Gov. George W. Bush
signed a law that allows hospitals to make these decisions regardless of
the
families' (or patients') wishes.

You know, I keep reading that but I heard on the radio that the law he
signed included guardians, in the following order: Spouses, adult children,
and then the parents. IOW if there's no spouse, the decision is up to the
adult children, if there's no adult children, then the parents have their
say. All of that is of course with the concurrence of a doctor. Do you have
an easy to cite source at hand for any of this? I'd like to get the straight
scoop. Searching for stuff on this case is getting harder and harder; one of
these days, it's going to be called the blogernet instead of the internet.

I heard it on the radio, but it was MW...so we're probably not back on
topic. ;)

Here is a link to the story I saw. I don't know if it answers your
questions specifically. It does appear that the Texas law gives the
hospitals the final say.

Greg

From: Greg
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 23:49:23 GMT
Subject: Rush sounds defensive



From: "Honus"
Organization: Death to Spammers
Reply-To: "Honus"
Newsgroups: rec.radio.shortwave
Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 18:48:07 GMT
Subject: Rush sounds defensive


"Greg" wrote in message
...

snip

in similar conditions, except in Texas, where then Gov. George W. Bush
signed a law that allows hospitals to make these decisions regardless of
the
families' (or patients') wishes.

You know, I keep reading that but I heard on the radio that the law he
signed included guardians, in the following order: Spouses, adult children,
and then the parents. IOW if there's no spouse, the decision is up to the
adult children, if there's no adult children, then the parents have their
say. All of that is of course with the concurrence of a doctor. Do you have
an easy to cite source at hand for any of this? I'd like to get the straight
scoop. Searching for stuff on this case is getting harder and harder; one of
these days, it's going to be called the blogernet instead of the internet.

I heard it on the radio, but it was MW...so we're probably not back on
topic. ;)

Here is a link to the story I saw. I don't know if it answers your
questions specifically. It does appear that the Texas law gives the
hospitals the final say.

Greg


Ooops, I meant:
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...NEWS/503240433

"Greg" wrote in message
...

Ooops, I meant:

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...NEWS/503240433

Well, well, well...very interesting. Thanks for the link. This is definitely
worth looking into further.