Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

Perhaps it isnt.

Do you have a better process to suggest?

Do you really think that federal elected officials intervening in a decision
between a doctor and their appropriate decision maker is better than the
court procedures that were followed here?

If I thought that there was really any chance that all of the grandstanding
by the congressmen was going to go anywhere, I would be very very worried
about a federal official intervening in health care decision making.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
To: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu
>> [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of jack syme
>> Sent: Friday, March 18, 2005 10:42 PM
>> To: Glenn Morton; 'Bill Dozier'
>> Cc: 'ASA'
>> Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes
>>
>>
>> It is a big deal when you are arguing that it is only the
>> husbands word that
>> Terri Schiavo would want to have her feeding tube removed.
>> IT IS NOT JUST
>> THE HUSBANDS WORD. That is the point. The courts involved
>> testimony from
>> others also.
>>
>
> And the court decision, which you thought supported your case clearly
> said that the testimony was all over the place. That means there is
> nothing clear cut about this at all. You really should read that link
> you sent out.
>
> And by the way, you failed to acknowledge how weak your argument was
> that stated that this is ok because 2 courts have allowed it. Courts
> rule badly all the time. Look at the number of innocent people sent to
> death row. Look at the Dred Scott decision. A court ruling is not a
> divine fiat.
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 19 10:21:18 2005