[lbo-talk] Shaivo finale on my part (for real)

Marta Russell ap888 at lafn.org
Fri Mar 25 10:26:05 PST 2005



>Seth wrote:
>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.)

It is my understanding that the mother, father, brother and sister all stated the contrary about her wishes. That leaves doubt and when in doubt one should choose caution. There is only one life a person has.

We also don't know that she would have agreed to being starved and dehydrated to death. Would she have chosen that? That is a very important question unanswered.

People don't allow their dogs and cats to be starved and dehydrated to death. It is considered cruel and inhumane.

The LA Times (March 24) reported that the Schindler's lawyer David Gibbs III said they "were watching 'her skin crack, her nose bleed.'" The lawyer said "Schiavo was having 'pangs of hunger and thirst.'"

Chris Matthews reported that one nurse had come forward and told reporters that hubby often came in to the hospice agitated and anxious. She was reported to have said that hubby would say things like "when is this bitch going to die." HardBall, yesterday.


>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care withdrawn?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 believe that it should CLEARLY be the disabled person's choice AND that there was insufficient evidence in this case.

Today I must get some work done so I won't be available for more exchange. Besides I think everyone is about tired of this topic.

Marta --



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list