Assisted Suicide...

[Psudopod]

did you read my post? did you read the circumstances surrounding her right before her death? Do you get that he was in line to benefit financially from her death? Do you get that he had a girlfriend, with children, and that it was odd that guardianship was not removed from him and given to her family?

I can't blame someone for wanting to move on with their lives after a tragedy. I do recognise that he was to gain financially and that is the only thing that I find any chance of wrong doing. However the courts were also aware of this and doubt it was ignored in the decision.

Do you get that she was aware of her slow, excruciating dying of thirst..over a prolonged period of time? Do you get that she was not allowed to have her family or anyone else visit her during her dying?

From the medical evidence, she would not have been aware of either.

In your research, did you find out where she was buried? Did her family ever find out where her remains are?

It's very openly on the wikipedia article. There's even a picture of the headstone.

Does this cause you even a glimmer of discomfort that maybe, just maybe, something was terribly wrong, and that a legal precedent was set by Michael's attorney in this case?

It's not impossible, miscarriges of justice do happen. But I haven't seen enough in this case to make that kind of judgement. And I think this case makes living wills a much more important issues that I had considered previously.

Do you know why there are those who are disabled in various ways that this terrifies?

Right to die cases should only go on the patient's wishes and the medical evidence. These were the two factors that the court decided on.

In this case, under the circumstances, he should have never been allowed to remain Terri's power of attorney.

I have yet to see why. And I think it's important that care of the sick and disabled isn't arbitraily handed back to their families. If I wanted to die, or I wanted to have my organs donated, I'd trust my partner to ensure my wishes were carried out than I would my family.

 

[brinny]

I can't blame someone for wanting to move on with their lives after a tragedy. I do recognise that he was to gain financially and that is the only thing that I find any chance of wrong doing. However the courts were also aware of this and doubt it was ignored in the decision.



From the medical evidence, she would not have been aware of either.



It's very openly on the wikipedia article. There's even a picture of the headstone.



It's not impossible, miscarriges of justice do happen. But I haven't seen enough in this case to make that kind of judgement. And I think this case makes living wills a much more important issues that I had considered previously.



Right to die cases should only go on the patient's wishes and the medical evidence. These were the two factors that the court decided on.



I have yet to see why. And I think it's important that care of the sick and disabled isn't arbitraily handed back to their families. If I wanted to die, or I wanted to have my organs donated, I'd trust my partner to ensure my wishes were carried out than I would my family.

If there's even a glimmer of wrong-doing, it must be reckoned with. Your conclusion indicates you have more research to do. There was evidence that was not allowed in court. There was a nurse's testimony. There were friends that knew her all her life that knew she valued life and would have never agreed to what Michael claimed she did. All of these, and more, are red flags that somehow should catch even the corner of your eye as they wave.

 

[stan1980]

If there's even a glimmer of wrong-doing, it must be reckoned with. Your conclusion indicates you have more research to do. There was evidence that was not allowed in court. There was a nurse's testimony. There were friends that knew her all her life that knew she valued life and would have never agreed to what Michael claimed she did. All of these, and more, are red flags that somehow should catch even the corner of your eye as they wave.

Thing is, we don't know where you're getting this information and we don't know if you've been misled or correct or any of the reasons behind some of these decisions, but all I'll say is the judge would have a far better understanding of the case than either you or me, and is far better qualified to come to a proper decision (and incidentally, it would make it a lot easier for a judge if living wills were common and accepted practice).

 

[stan1980]

It is much simpler if physicians assume that a desire to kill oneself is due to mental illness, rather than enabling people to kill themselves just because they are ill or old. Many of those who are euthanized in places were it is legal are depressed. Physicians are compensated for euthanizing people, and I would bet the profit margin is a lot better than caring for them in a nursing home. Also, some insurance offers euthanasia but not treatment, which is decidedly immoral. Also, there can enter into society a belief that offing yourself is better, because of health care rationing, than living out ones existence, because of the expense involved. Needless to say, I don't want health care workers assuming that the proper course of action is to kill someone. I don't want killing other people to be legal.

First of all, don't get insurance with a company if they wont pay out for treatment. That is just common sense.

All I want is the choice to be able to die, if I can't do it myself. Simple enough, and it doesn't mean we will start bumping people off when they become a burden if the person has never made any wish to be killed.

 

[fated]

First of all, don't get insurance with a company if they wont pay out for treatment. That is just common sense.

All I want is the choice to be able to die, if I can't do it myself. Simple enough, and it doesn't mean we will start bumping people off when they become a burden if the person has never made any wish to be killed.

What if you're depressed? Should a doctor assume that a depressed person is making a logical decision?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
If there's even a glimmer of wrong-doing, it must be reckoned with. Your conclusion indicates you have more research to do. There was evidence that was not allowed in court. There was a nurse's testimony. There were friends that knew her all her life that knew she valued life and would have never agreed to what Michael claimed she did. All of these, and more, are red flags that somehow should catch even the corner of your eye as they wave.

Thing is, we don't know where you're getting this information and we don't know if you've been misled or correct or any of the reasons behind some of these decisions, but all I'll say is the judge would have a far better understanding of the case than either you or me, and is far better qualified to come to a proper decision (and incidentally, it would make it a lot easier for a judge if living wills were common and accepted practice).

this judge had an agenda as did Michael's attorney. The judge ordered that she not be given water..he prohibited it(??!!) (even though she was capable of swallowing on her own) That, in itself is a horror of a miscarriage of justice. The information is out there...some of it my blog, because i was following the case because i was sooo horrified at everything that was unfolding before my very eyes...i was more horrified with the dis-allowing of evidence that would've shown injuries, a history of them that would've at least opened up the possibility of domestic violence. Terri collapsed, there was indication of neck injury...the circumstances around her collapse were just breezed over and it remained a mystery and assumptions were made.

 

[stan1980]

What if you're depressed? Should a doctor assume that a depressed person is making a logical decision?

If I was in the position of the rugby player in the OP, there is a good chance I'd be depressed and want to die. I'd hope my wishes were respected.

 

[stan1980]

this judge had an agenda as did Michael's attorney. The judge ordered that she not be given water..he prohibited it(??!!) (even though she was capable of swallowing on her own) That, in itself is a horror of a miscarriage of justice. The information is out there...some of it my blog, because i was following the case because i was sooo horrified at everything that was unfolding before my very eyes...i was more horrified with the dis-allowing of evidence that would've shown injuries, a history of them that would've at least opened up the possibility of domestic violence. Terri collapsed, there was indication of neck injury...the circumstances around her collapse were just breezed over and it remained a mystery and assumptions were made.

What was the judge's agenda?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by fated
What if you're depressed? Should a doctor assume that a depressed person is making a logical decision?

If I was in the position of the rugby player in the OP, there is a good chance I'd be depressed and want to die. I'd hope my wishes were respected.

c'mon stan, that's not what he means.

 

[stan1980]

c'mon stan, that's not what he means.

The bottom line is, if a person wants to die that is their decision to make. I wouldn't want to be the one who stands in their way while they suffer. You wouldn't even keep an animal alive if it were suffering.

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
c'mon stan, that's not what he means

.

The bottom line is, if a person wants to die that is their decision to make. I wouldn't want to be the one who stands in their way while they suffer. You wouldn't even keep an animal alive if it were suffering.

yet it can get awful sticky

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
this judge had an agenda as did Michael's attorney. The judge ordered that she not be given water..he prohibited it(??!!) (even though she was capable of swallowing on her own) That, in itself is a horror of a miscarriage of justice. The information is out there...some of it my blog, because i was following the case because i was sooo horrified at everything that was unfolding before my very eyes...i was more horrified with the dis-allowing of evidence that would've shown injuries, a history of them that would've at least opened up the possibility of domestic violence. Terri collapsed, there was indication of neck injury...the circumstances around her collapse were just breezed over and it remained a mystery and assumptions were made.

What was the judge's agenda?

it is believed quite strongly that he was an advocate for this precedent Michael's attorney was attempting to set in motion through this case...his decisions just didn't make sense....

i don't remember all the details...i have more in my blog....but i was horrified that they did not hand the case to another judge who would at least have the appearance of being objective and impartial......

 

[fated]

If I was in the position of the rugby player in the OP, there is a good chance I'd be depressed and want to die. I'd hope my wishes were respected.

It seems like if depression is a valid reason, that poor people would be unfairly "targeted" with euthanasia rather than treatment and merciful care by society.

 

[stan1980]

Lets imagine I get hit by a bus tomorrow, leaves me completely paralysed. I haven't got any family, and my friends wouldn't want me as a burden nor would I want to be a burden on them. I haven't exactly got a lot going for me as it is so what would I have left to live for without my body? Would you really want to stand in my way of ending my own life?

 

[stan1980]

it is believed quite strongly that he was an advocate for this precedent Michael's attorney was attempting to set in motion through this case...his decisions just didn't make sense....

i don't remember all the details...i have more in my blog....but i was horrified that they did not hand the case to another judge who would at least have the appearance of being objective and impartial......

It's probably most likely his decisions didn't make sense as you didn't have all the facts at hand, or you've been misled through some of your sources. I can't say that for sure, of course, but it would seem more likely.

 

[fated]

Lets imagine I get hit by a bus tomorrow, leaves me completely paralysed. I haven't got any family, and my friends wouldn't want me as a burden nor would I want to be a burden on them. I haven't exactly got a lot going for me as it is so what would I have left to live for without my body? Would you really want to stand in my way of ending my own life?

I would stand in the way of a physician killing you. Or a nurse. Or a random eugenics gunman. It's all the same to me. If you must kill yourself, keep it to yourself, and then we don't have to worry about murder being legalized.

 

[brinny]

Lets imagine I get hit by a bus tomorrow, leaves me completely paralysed. I haven't got any family, and my friends wouldn't want me as a burden nor would I want to be a burden on them. I haven't exactly got a lot going for me as it is so what would I have left to live for without my body? Would you really want to stand in my way of ending my own life?

stan, although the feelings you would surely have in that situation are painfully understandable...i'd caution setting it as a precedent....the decision would then be taken from the paralyzed party too easily and decisions would be made without their consent.....foul play could reign supreme....

 

[stan1980]

It seems like if depression is a valid reason, that poor people would be unfairly "targeted" with euthanasia rather than treatment and merciful care by society.

Able bodied people are unlikely to go to their doctor to be killed. Even if they did, I think common sense would prevail, and they'd offer them treatment rather than kill them, wouldn't you say?

I think decisions to kill a person will only be made in extreme circumstances when the person is unable to do it themselves.

 

[stan1980]

I would stand in the way of a physician killing you. Or a nurse. Or a random eugenics gunman. It's all the same to me. If you must kill yourself, keep it to yourself, and then we don't have to worry about murder being legalized.

Yes, but what if I can't do it myself? You'd let me live the rest of my days in misery?

 

[brinny]

Originally Posted by brinny
it is believed quite strongly that he was an advocate for this precedent Michael's attorney was attempting to set in motion through this case...his decisions just didn't make sense....

i don't remember all the details...i have more in my blog....but i was horrified that they did not hand the case to another judge who would at least have the appearance of being objective and impartial......

It's probably most likely his decisions didn't make sense as you didn't have all the facts at hand, or you've been misled through some of your sources. I can't say that for sure, of course, but it would seem more likely.

although i understand why you may see that...please keep an open mind...there are too many unanswered questions regarding the entire ordeal.