LawTalkers - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes. (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=661)

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
No, but I can say it when the answer is an attempt to change the subject because you don't like where the first one went.

I didn't change the subject. I just noted that being a repulican means more than simply advocating tax cuts.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
You're replying to me, the death penalty opponent, right?

Umm, sorry no - more replying to the world out there of death penalty enthusiasts. Should have made that clearer.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Keep in mind that this was a reply to Wonk's statement that I supported "The Procedure" when I supported the Iraq war. There is a huge distinction. And, yeah, it's one I'll be sanctimonious about.

Please explain the distinction. The "Procedure" as I understand it, is the application of law to a given situation. The "System" comprises the body of laws, rules, and procedures which are applied. One is specific, the other general. The generality is irrelevant except as it is applied in the specific.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is a very simple case. Many of you are getting caught up in the media hype. Whether she should be permitted to die is dependent on her wishes. The question has been tried and appealed at several levels of state and federal courts and is settled. Everything else is smoke an mirrors. All this about the husband not acting "husbandly" or having a conflict of interest is bullshit and, frankly, I would think that a board filled with lawyers would be able to identify these as red herrings.

Uh, club, STP.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Uh, club, STP.

The guy puts forth his opinion, and all you can do is recommend an oil additive?

Cold, man.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
The guy puts forth his opinion, and all you can do is recommend an oil additive?

Cold, man.

Dude, it's the racer's edge. It's good stuff.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore Given all of that, I keep coming back to, where's the harm here? If they kill her, there's definite psych/emotional harm to her parents. If they keep her alive, there's harm to . . . her dignity? No, there's harm to someone else's conception of her dignity - which means, to me, the harm is to the person who decides to feel harm, there's harm to the person who is so invested of winning in this process that they will see her continuation as a defeat.

Well, there's the harm to me if I ever end up in such a state and after clearly making it known that I do not want to be kept in such a state they keep feeding and watering me like a potted plant because it makes them feel good.

The harm is to her right to self-determination, and consequentially, to EVERYONE's right to self-determination. There has been a finding that she would not have wanted to be kept this way. That finding has been upheld by what? 17 judges now. Her wishes don't get trumped by someone else, even if they love her very, very, very much. There are 30,000 pages of documents (as of December 2003, per the ad litem report, there are probably another 10,000 or so by now) in this case. Do you really think that they just checked boxes to come to the conclusion that they should pull the plug without giving the matter a LOT of consideration?

The harm is also to the institution of marriage that your party seems to be so enamoured with.

The harm is to the concept of separation of powers that our founding fathers were so good to put into our constitution.

The harm is to the concept of federalism that your party, and Justice Scalia in his concurrance to the Cruzan case, seem to love.

The harm is to the concept of liberty, where we are free to make our own decisions about our lives. Where we have the ability to consent to our own healthcare and are not forced to care that we do not want.

The harm is to thousands and thousands of people all across the country who have had to make the same painful decision for their loved ones and now are being told that they've starved their family members to death and are no better than murderers.

The harm is to thousands of hospice workers across the country, who ease pain and suffering after nutrition and hydration have been removed, who are now

Ah, Grandstanding!

Quote:

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
AS WE PASS 100 HOURS OF STARVATION AND DEHYDRATION ...
by Andy McCarthy, NRO

RT and others have dealt with this earlier and better, but Slave, will you just stop quoting this shit?

I am absolutely agog at the hypocrisy of those conservatives today wailing over Terri Schiavo who, had she signed a living will or DHCPOA, presumably would've been just fine with her passing this way.

Quote:

Shoot the bitch with a lethal injection already, why don't we.

Ah. I take it from this that you're NOT okay with the current result. In that case, you'd better get busy -- several things for you and your compatriots at the NRO and elsewhere to do.

* Drive to the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute. Pull all of their white papers containing the words "federalist" or "state's rights." Pile on Pennsylvania Ave. Burn.

*Turn in your libertarian purity score.

* Please tell the GOP that its master plan to cut Medicare/aid may have some slight problems now that we've entered the Culture of Life. Turns out that many patients rely on it as a literal lifeline for medical care. Once it runs out, they die pretty quickly. It may take voters a while to make the connection, but you never know.

* Commence Federalizing almost every state law on assisted suicide.

(Amongst these laws, by the way, is that of Texas. The 1999 law that Gov Bush signed that's getting so much attention these days? Note that in the circumstances where a physician decides to disregard parents' wishes, or a directive from the patient emself, that same TX law permits the doctor to remove the feeding tube or respirator, but explicitly forbids mercy killings or otherwise accelerating death. Last I heard, TX was a Republican state.

So let's stop seeing these fucking articles about how Terri would be better off with Democrats if she were a terrorist. Thank you.)

Ah, Grandstanding!

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
RT and others have dealt with this earlier and better, but Slave, will you just stop quoting this shit?

I am absolutely agog at the hypocrisy of those conservatives today wailing over Terri Schiavo who, had she signed a living will or DHCPOA, presumably would've been just fine with her passing this way.

Ah. I take it from this that you're NOT okay with the current result. In that case, you'd better get busy -- several things for you and your compatriots at the NRO and elsewhere to do.

* Drive to the Heritage Foundation and Cato Institute. Pull all of their white papers containing the words "federalist" or "state's rights." Pile on Pennsylvania Ave. Burn.

*Turn in your libertarian purity score.

* Please tell the GOP that its master plan to cut Medicare/aid may have some slight problems now that we've entered the Culture of Life. Turns out that many patients rely on it as a literal lifeline for medical care. Once it runs out, they die pretty quickly. It may take voters a while to make the connection, but you never know.

* Commence Federalizing almost every state law on assisted suicide.

(Amongst these laws, by the way, is that of Texas. The 1999 law that Gov Bush signed that's getting so much attention these days? Note that in the circumstances where a physician decides to disregard parents' wishes, or a directive from the patient emself, that same TX law permits the doctor to remove the feeding tube or respirator, but explicitly forbids mercy killings or otherwise accelerating death. Last I heard, TX was a Republican state.

So let's stop seeing these fucking articles about how Terri would be better off with Democrats if she were a terrorist. Thank you.)

Your Reason and Evidence beams are useless once they've raised their Logic Deflection Shields.

Question for litigators/appellate counsel

Why go for an en banc hearing in the 11th Circuit instead of directly to the Supreme Court?

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Well, there's the harm to me if I ever end up in such a state and after clearly making it known that I do not want to be kept in such a state they keep feeding and watering me like a potted plant because it makes them feel good.

Y'all are acting like this is old established law. The idea that you can leave instruction to make sure you are allowed to die is relatively new. You should expect there would be changes and tension as weird facts crop up. Jack K was allowed to ice dozens before they finally decided that wasn't cool- then things changed.

Here you don't have a case where her "intentions" were clearly set forth. And you have a type case where w/o the stated desire to be allowed to die, the person would be kept on life support. That is, there is not need to prove she'd want to be kept alive.

You do have a court saying, based upon testimony, we believe she did want to die. But there is a huge problem with hearsay. "State of mind" doesn't answer that- SOM isn't an exception if it is the ultimate issue, and plus the SOM months or years earlier is of little value here. Of course evidence decisions are for the courts, but this one seems pretty suspect.

Did you see Seinfeld where Kramer flip-flopped? Perhaps she saw a coma victim one day and told hubby she'd rather die, then the next saw a rainbow and realized she'd rather fight to live.

Ultimately, some rule should flow from this- I don't see how you take testimony on the question, and I'm sure a good number of people will put their desires into writing-

What you all shouldn't do is act as if some movement for challenging the current "law" shouldn't be expected given this very hard set of facts.

Conf. to RT-
I'll PM you a form that will allow me to make sure I take over care and that the plug is pulled. The "Consent to have photos published" part is a term of art- trust me.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Harm? Where? When we're in that condition, we're sushi. You can't insult, upset, or otherwise bother sushi.

Quote:

The harm is to her right to self-determination, and consequentially, to EVERYONE's right to self-determination. There has been a finding that she would not have wanted to be kept this way. That finding has been upheld by what? 17 judges now. Her wishes don't get trumped by someone else, even if they love her very, very, very much. There are 30,000 pages of documents (as of December 2003, per the ad litem report, there are probably another 10,000 or so by now) in this case. Do you really think that they just checked boxes to come to the conclusion that they should pull the plug without giving the matter a LOT of consideration?

First, "pull the plug"? This isn't a respirator case. They're going to stop feeding her.

Second, "right to self-determination"? We don't have that except in specific cases. If I kill myself, I get sent to jail. If my wife says that life with me is unbearable (again), and says "just shoot me, bil", I still can't kill her. It's always been a balancing of the interests of the living and the dying. Don't claim this as an absolute here.

Third, I think I'm arguing on a more basic, gut level than are you. Yeah, we have all these wonderful findings, and determinations, and all the right papers have been signed and stapled and filed in the right places. I still don't see why everybody couldn't have simply walked away that wanted to before millions and millions were spent. Who the fuck CARES if she's alive, except her parents and her husband? Husband says no, parents say we'll take care of her - where's the problem? If husband's harm is that he has to go through life knowing she's still alive somewhere, well, that doesn't rbing tears to my eyes.

Quote:

The harm is also to the institution of marriage that your party seems to be so enamoured with.

Clinton was boinking what's-her-name in the White House!

I mean, if this discussion can validly be comprised of throwing things that other people who share the gross lines of party affiliation have done or said in the past, we're gonna run out of internet.

Quote:

The harm is to the concept of separation of powers that our founding fathers were so good to put into our constitution.

The harm is to the concept of federalism that your party, and Justice Scalia in his concurrance to the Cruzan case, seem to love.

2

But that's not what I'm saying. I think the fed action is horribly misplaced. I think it's driven by the right motives among some, and crass motives among others, but it shouldn't be tried. Usurpation is just going to backfire.

Quote:

The harm is to thousands and thousands of people all across the country who have had to make the same painful decision for their loved ones and now are being told that they've starved their family members to death and are no better than murderers.

The harm is to thousands of hospice workers across the country, who ease pain and suffering after nutrition and hydration have been removed, who are now

Ever done the caregiver bit, for months at a time, until death? I have, twice, in my own home. It sucks, and is rewarding as hell, and I see nothing about this case that would change my opinion, or cheapen my efforts, or . . . anything.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore

Ever done the caregiver bit, for months at a time, until death? I have, twice, in my own home. It sucks, and is rewarding as hell, and I see nothing about this case that would change my opinion, or cheapen my efforts, or . . . anything.

Yes. Many times. There's a reason that I'm a health care lawyer.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Yes. Many times. There's a reason that I'm a health care lawyer.

Then how can you make the statement (that I think you made?) that this episode could ever cheapen, or affect, that role? It's a very close, personal role to play, and the emotions and rewards and prices paid are direct and personal, too. If anything, I would be disheartened by the reliance on process over an acknowledgement of, and service to, the feelings and needs of the people who are left behind.

Quality Control at CBSNews.com

Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Then how can you make the statement (that I think you made?) that this episode could ever cheapen, or affect, that role? It's a very close, personal role to play, and the emotions and rewards and prices paid are direct and personal, too. If anything, I would be disheartened by the reliance on process over an acknowledgement of, and service to, the feelings and needs of the people who are left behind.

I said that hospice workers who give care to those who are dying are going to be harmed by this when it is alleged, as slave and The Sock have been wont to point out over and over again, that withdrawing nutrition and hydration is akin to murder and torture. I also said that the thousands of families who made the same painful decision will likely be second-guessing themselves, having similarly been branded as murderers and torturers. I stand by that.

Have you read the ad litem report? I don't think anyone's feelings have been unacknowledged in this situation.