[lbo-talk] Re: terri schiavo

[louis kontos]

i take it, from your reference to taking a gun, that you would not 
support a painless end, e.g., morphine overdose? many of us have had to 
make the choice between letting our loved ones suffer versus helping 
them die. i was fortunate enough to able to make this decision, with 
the help of doctors and hospice workers, without the scrutiny of moral 
hypocrites, political opportunists or clueless others. what i've heard 
about the shiavo case is that the husband stayed with the woman several 
years in her parents' house, where all of them tried to take of her 
until deciding  (i.e. the parents too) that her needs were unbearable 
to them as her condition (i.e. a vegetative state) worsened. i've also 
heard that the husband tried everything that might improve her health 
and quality of life, including experimental treatment, and that he's 
done right by her from the beginning. if this is all correct, then it 
is not only wrong to judge him but criminally immoral for anybody to 
stand in his way.

On Mar 22, 2005, at 2:20 PM, Marta Russell wrote:


>>
>> I know it's usually dumb to start asking the lawyers here to 
>> articulate
>> the legal angle to these kinds of stories, but I can't stand it 
>> anymore.
>> Is this case just full of shit or what?
>>
>> /jordan
>
> I cannot resist this one but it will be the last.
> This is from a lawyer cousin of a friend of mine:
>
>
>
> I don't understand this one bit.  If the judge said, it was okay to 
> kill this poor angel (which it is not), then take a gun and plug her a 
> few times and that would be (wrongly) that.  But starve her to death?? 
>  That's perfectly natural and appropriate only if your care is being 
> provided courtesy of the SS or  Pol Pot.
> If this lady was a convicted serial killer, condemned to die, the 
> Eighth Amendment would prohibit death by starvation.  They'd have to 
> give her the chair, or lethal injection, or a firing squad--i.e., 
> something a bit more humane.
> If this woman were a prisoner of war and the judge and her husband 
> were her "captors," under the Nuremberg Principles, they'd be looking 
> at  twenty years in Spandau.
>
> There is no logic to this idea of death by "natural means."  Maybe 
> they should just throw the woman off the top of the Empire State 
> Building and say that gravity killed her. Or fill her hospital room 
> with water and say that the floods swept her away.  Stuff   her in a 
> bag full of snakes. Nothing artificial about venom--it's even organic.
>
> If her husband and the judge really thinks this is what she wants and 
> what is humane, I suggest that the judge stay his order for six 
> months. The judge and hubby could then be handcuffed to a bed and 
> starved. Like Dr. Mengele used to say, nothing sensational, no twins 
> or anything exciting, just no food or water for the rest of their 
> lives.  Don't even talk to these guys for a reasonable amount of 
> time--say five weeks, then ask them how things are going. After all, 
> they can speak-- this poor woman cannot.  Stick these guys on CNN 
> every nite.  Have Larry King ask Hubby how things are going since his 
> body temperature passed 104 and his weight dropped to 71. Ask the 
> Judge if its a liberating or humbling experience for an authority 
> figure like His Honor to scream until his gums bleed for just a drop 
> of water have people smile politely and walk by.
>
> Screw the legal process. President Bush should send a phalanx of US 
> Marshals to the hospital with and a couple of army nurses to take care 
> of this gal.
>
> Talk about a rotten son-in-law.
>  <...>
>
>
> Marta
> -- 
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>