>Marta Russell wrote:
>
>>>Kelley wrote:
>>>
>>>Under my terms, she had expressed the desire not to be kept alive by a
>>>machine under those particular conditions. She should have thr right to
>>>do that, just as blind kids should have a right not to have corrective
>>>eye surgery forced on them.
>>
>>
>>There is no evidence that is what Terri expressed. It is what her
>>husband (who has a new family now and will not give her a divorce) claims
>>she wants and her parents differ. I agree with Nat Hentoff on this. The
>>evidence is not there. The court ruled without sufficient
>>evidence. They make mistakes, ask some death row inmates.
OOOO. more logical fallacy at the end there. nice work!
You are wrong: the husband and OTHERS testified. The family and OTHERS testified to the opposite.
>My understanding is that 3 people - the husband and 2 other family members
>- testified in the original trial that they heard TS say she wouldn't want
>to be kept alive. (They had all been sitting around discussing these
>issues one evening after visiting a relative in the hospital.) Marta, is
>it your view that without a living will no one should have care withdrawn?
>Or just that there was insufficient evidence in this particular case?
>
>Seth
I think it's pretty obvious that Marta thinks that no care should be withdrawn, even if the person wants it that way. Kervorkian, for christ sake, is talking about people who voluntarily want to end their life if they are MORTALLY crippled or MORTALLY diseased. VOLUNTARILY.
But, apparently, Marta thinks this means that he wants to off people against their will and that anyone who disagrees with her should be likened to Kervorkian or Nazis.
>see Counterpunch, Vol. 7, #9
>
>Kevorkian's Written Statement to the Court (August, 1990, cited in State
>of Michigan v. Kevorkian, Circuit Court for the county of Oakland) said
>"[T]he voluntary self-elimination of individual and mortally diseased or
>crippled lives taken collectively can only enhance the preservation of
>public health and welfare."
>
>K put "enhance" in italics.
>
>Statement is on p. 11
>
>I'm not sure if it is on the web. I have a copy in my files.
>Marta
>--
that statement doesn't support your claim. Firstly, he doesn't want people offed against their will.
Secondly, if i write "joyful prayer and song," I mean that both prayer and song are joyful. if I want to say that only prayer is joyful and song is not/something else, I'd write, "prayer and joyful song."
I learned that in grade school. I'll bet Kervorkian and his lawyers did too. I'd parse the sentence to mean that he was talking about "mortally diseased and MORTALLY crippled lives". As far as I know, mortally here means something like "mortally wounded" which is to say that death will result from the disease/crippled state.
My son watched his best friend, Antony, get hit by a car a few years ago. He was mortally wounded, though it wasn't evident until a few days after when it was clear he could only be kept alive through heroic measures. His parents decided to let him die. Gosh. What monsters. They were poor and black and I bet they wanted his life insurance policy. Oh, I know, it would mean she'd have one less mouth to feed, one less babe to take care of. Yes, she made that decision callously and monstrously.
Lawyers parse words pretty carefully, would they let that slide if what Kervorkian meant is that any crippled life, mortal or not? I'd need more evidence to believe this interpretation.
Also, he's talking about voluntarily eliminating one's life. Why do you care what another individual decides to do with their life. If they don't want to live, leave 'em alone and let them die. Maybe they want to avoid a painful demise.
But, I'm sure Kervorkian is a Nazi so no use discussing this.
kelley