Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

I think I have clearly answered your question. And I think I have mentioned
more than once that comparing this to animals is not valid. I am not going
to answer that again.

As far as your opinion that if it isnt written down then you need to err on
the side of life. Good! At least that is an argument against the process.
The truth is though, that after the Cruzan decision, most states have passed
laws allowing decisions to be made, sometimes with restrictions, without
specific written documentation of such wishes. My suggestion is that if you
dont like that idea that you find out what the laws are in your state, and
complain to your lawmakers if you dont agree.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'jack syme'" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>; "'Bill Dozier'"
<wddozier@mac.com>
Cc: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:47 PM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jack syme [mailto:drsyme@cablespeed.com]
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 9:14 PM
>> To: Glenn Morton; 'Bill Dozier'
>> Cc: 'ASA'
>> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>>
>>
>> So do you want to go back to the pre Nancy Cruzan days when
>> you had to have
>> all of your wishes written down? The process isnt perfect, I
>> wouldnt expect
>> it to be.
>
> Better than letting anyone claim what ever they want to claim for their
> own convenience. And it is better than letting a judge decide on his
> whimsy. I use the word whimsy in relation to the judge because he has
> denied anyone the ability to photograph her. He clearly doesn't want any
> publicity for what he has been trying to do to this poor woman for quite
> a while. Like it or not, the judge violated Federal law when he ignored
> the congressional subpoena, regardless of whether one thought that
> congress ought to do that or not. Yet he probably would claim to be
> upholding the law.
>
> To me, if there is nothing written down, it is better to err on the side
> of life. If she had written down that she didn't want to live like that,
> I would be on the other side.
>
> And the plain fact is also that this woman is not being kept alive
> artificially. She breaths on her own. That makes this entirely
> different than someone on a respirator.
>
> You haven't answered the question: Why is it cruel (not to mention
> illegal) to starve and dehydrate a dog, but not cruel to starve and
> dehydrate a human? PETA would be all over this if Schiavo was a rabbit.
> But since she is a human, they sit silently while cruelty is carried
> out.
>
Received on Fri Mar 18 23:04:20 2005