<p>Singer is hilarious. He was such a great person they picked to lead the medical ethics program at Princeton. Gosh, you just gotta love the brains they have at that top institution...</p>
<p>I think the generalizations and stereotypings and calling names is getting us nowhere. "Liberals get mad if they're called liberals, so lets just call them left-leaning meatheads," according to my gov teacher. That just means if you call one side anything, the individuals are going to get offended because they do not totally fit that ideology. And, I'm not targeting Dems or other progressive groups by that statement, its just an example.</p>
<p>As for my stance on this issue, I think that as long as taxpayers weren't footing most of the bill for a woman whom DOCTORS ALL THOUGHT WOULD NOT LEAVE A VEGETATIVE STATE, she should continue to live unless the family doesn't want to pay the medical costs. If people want to pay the costs, let them keep her alive. She didn't have a living will, so we can't be 100% sure wether she wanted life-on-a-feeding-tube or non-sustainment.</p>
<p>Excuse me babybird, hysteria on my side. You've got Republican members of Congress calling members of the Florida judiciary "barbarians" and "murderers"! Have you not seent the pictures of the protests out site Terri Schiavo's hospice. The hysteria is on your side my friend. And the disgusting thing about it is that nobody in the anti-choice religious right gave a rats *** about this case until Friday. Their crocodile tears over the life of Terri Schiavo are as fake and as patronizing as it gets. This is all about politics, and nothing about the sanctity of life.</p>
<p>There are a lot of differant opinions being thrown around, so I want to return to the source of the issue. The issue is not whether or not Terri's feeding tube should be removed. That question is not up for public debate. It is none of my business, or your business, or Congress' business. That question has been considered and decided by 19 differant judges in the State of Florida. The ONLY reason it is being debated now, on national TV, is because Congressional Republicans suddenly took and interest in the case.</p>
<p>We have to analyze their motives. Let's get one thing straight; Congress is not concerned with whether or not Terri lives. If Congress were really concerned, they would have acted way before Friday. They don't care, and they know that in the end, Terri will die (in my opinion, she is dead already). The Supreme Court has already rejected appeals to the original Florida decision. Federal litigation is going to have the same result eventually.</p>
<p>The Republicans know that they can use this case to score political points. They'll use it to excite their base, and even use it against Democrats in Congress that they want to defeat. Now, legislation is written with this objective all the time, but there is no higher immorality than using the body of Terri Schiavo to achieve that objective. </p>
<p>On a side note, people are freaking out on Terri's method of death. According to expert doctors, many of whom have already testified on the case, Terri has lost so much cognitive function that she cannot feel hunger and she cannot feel thirst. She will not suffer from her death.</p>
<p>Correction number two. The legislation being considered does not expressly extend her life. It only throws her case into federal court. </p>
<p>It is still entirely possible that the federal court will uphold the state ruling, and it is still possible, even with the bill, that Terri's feeding tube may not be removed.</p>
<p>i really think Tom DeLay brought this all up to digress attention from the investigations going on with him....i mean if u check the headlines on DeLay for the past week or week and half you'll see the change in the headlines from the investigations to all about the Schavio case...i personally think its all jus political...neone wanna refute me on that?</p>
<p>Terri's situation has taught lessons.
1) EVERYONE needs a living will.
2) EVERYTHING becomes a political deal. What I mean by this is a few genuinely concerned senators (namely Frist) worked their butts off to get a bill ready for the House. Then, Congressman Sensenbrenner from Wisconsin, a Republican like Frist, gets selfish and cocky and decides to change the bill. In the meantime, Terri Schiavo is dying.
3) Michael Shiavo is a crook. He gets $20 million if Terri dies. He has a family by another woman. He cut off ALL rehabilitative therapy for Terri THE DAY she began to show the smallest signs of consciousness. Also, investigators are digging up stuff about him abusing her after her intitial heart attack/stroke.
4) Euthanasia is near. If indeed they let her die, TEN THOUSAND other people without living wills will die within one year. This is simply unacceptable. To allow such a thing to happen simply sets a precedent for future euthanasia.</p>
<p>If I were Terri, I would want to be dead. The media continues to flash the poor woman's face up on the screen, which is inhumane in and of itself. Still, the tube must remain in place in order to prevent unnecessary and ungrounded Kavorkian (sp?) euthanasia.</p>
<p>As for those who advocate letting her die, I was on your side until it went to the Senate.</p>
<p>I think this case should have never made it to the federal level, this is purely a states rights issue and moreso a personal issue between Terri and her husband and not Terri and U.S. govt...let the man live his life and repect the fact that letting someone live who is truly not alive has no purpose. What irkes me most about this case is that congress and the president take deliberate and fast action on something such as this they totally neglect and fail to pass and ERA amendment, something that has been in the political agenda for almost the last 100 years.</p>
<p>exactly taurustorus. I'm so not a fan of this federal court stepping in. Its a states issue, and you know what? I personally think this is one of those "Americans always sue" issues. Why can't the family decide? Gosh.</p>
<p>well, the courts stepped in because the familes couldnt decide and sued each other ... its the evangelicals taking this up as an issue which caused the law to be passed by congress</p>