nodnarb Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 movinon...I *MUST KNOW* who that chick is in your avatar.
R. Rich Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 you'd prefer that Dan Rather return, I presume? 279735[/snapback] Again, you presume incorrectly. Didn't we have this discussion about where people get their news from already?
nodnarb Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Again, you presume incorrectly. Didn't we have this discussion about where people get their news from already? 279740[/snapback] Hey, man. I'm laughin'. Easy.
Arkady Renko Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Let Fox News die too. Well said! 279758[/snapback] That would require FNC to actually be in the process of dying. Unlike many left-tilted news networks, it is living quite fine without a feeding-tube.
UConn James Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 That would require FNC to actually be in the process of dying. Unlike many left-tilted news networks, it is living quite find without a feeding-tube. 279760[/snapback] One newspaper editor, on why his paper (I think it was the "NY Sun" back in the day) was failing and his subscriber list dwindling: "I could never make it bad enough!"
Movinon Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 movinon...I *MUST KNOW* who that chick is in your avatar. 279738[/snapback] Don't have a clue, co-worker sent it to me. She is smoking though.
Arkady Renko Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 One newspaper editor, on why his paper (I think it was the "NY Sun" back in the day) was failing and his subscriber list dwindling: "I could never make it bad enough!" 279775[/snapback] I just find it interesting that the existence of just one network that speaks things a bit differently is so maddening to those on the left-side of the spectrum. "Turn it off, turn it off, I disagree with it!"
nodnarb Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Don't have a clue, co-worker sent it to me. She is smoking though. 279777[/snapback] Not an acceptable answer. Send said co-worker an inquiry and get back to me stat. No, I'm serious. :|
Tcali Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 That makes it even worse. All this drama added onto her suffering. 279560[/snapback] yeah--and maybe if she wakes up and tells people that he beat the crap out of her--explaining the healed fractures--he may be in trouble....
KRC Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 I just find it interesting that the existence of just one network that speaks things a bit differently is so maddening to those on the left-side of the spectrum. "Turn it off, turn it off, I disagree with it!" 279783[/snapback] ...and for those who do not quite have the mental capacity to not turn on the station in the first place... Stuff for Idiots
nodnarb Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 ...and for those who do not quite have the mental capacity to not turn on the station in the first place... Stuff for Idiots 279825[/snapback] wow. that guy's "facts" are no more factual than the "facts" he's calling out. just another stupid hypocrite with an agenda and a long finger only good for pointing.
MadBuffaloDisease Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 We have no clue what her stated request was or what she wants, if she knows what she wants now. This is not a right to die case. We have someone (her husband) saying she told him she wanted to die if she were in such a state. We have no one saying they heard her say she'd want to be kept alive. The parents need to stop being selfish and let go. The feeding tube is what's keeping her alive, because without it she'd die. She has no quality if life. Sometimes no life is better than "living."
BillsNYC Posted March 18, 2005 Author Posted March 18, 2005 We have someone (her husband) saying she told him she wanted to die if she were in such a state. We have no one saying they heard her say she'd want to be kept alive. The parents need to stop being selfish and let go. The feeding tube is what's keeping her alive, because without it she'd die. She has no quality if life. Sometimes no life is better than "living." 279871[/snapback] HERE HERE!!!
Campy Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 The husband has something to gain from her death: million dollar settlement and the ability to marry the woman he's been living with and had kids with. 279555[/snapback] Actually, he won't see any of that, according to his attorney. Yesterday or the day before he (the attorney) said that all of that money is gone as soon as it hits because of medical bills.
Arkady Renko Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 (edited) We have someone (her husband) saying she told him she wanted to die if she were in such a state. We have no one saying they heard her say she'd want to be kept alive. The parents need to stop being selfish and let go. The feeding tube is what's keeping her alive, because without it she'd die. She has no quality if life. Sometimes no life is better than "living." 279871[/snapback] The parents argue that she would want to stay alive. I don't see why the husband's word should carry any more weight even if the law says it should. (I'm not saying they should ignore the law. My point is that the current law should be changed). I don't know if the parents should let it go or not. But since they are the ones who are caring for her and are her parents, I don't see why they shouldn't be given some say in this matter. Taking out the feeding tube will starve her to death. They aren't sure if she will die in a few weeks or a few days from this. If she supposedly is suffering in her state, why is starving her to death the solution. She is not having the breathing done for her. She simply just can't swallow or eat herself. That's it. There are a lot of people who have this same problem. That being said, if the parents were okay with her being killed, then I'd be okay with it as well. But since they are providing the care and want to keep her alive, I side with them. For what it's worth, I think Noonan's piece on the subject is worth a read. If you are pretty adamently on the husband's side I doubt you'd want to however. Edited March 18, 2005 by JohnnyB
BillsNYC Posted March 18, 2005 Author Posted March 18, 2005 I can't believe that i actually side with the liberals on this....what's this world coming to?
BillsNYC Posted March 18, 2005 Author Posted March 18, 2005 I don't see why the husband's word should carry any more weight even if the law says it should. 279898[/snapback] That's like saying "robbing a bank is ok even if the law says it isn't"
scribo Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Why is this thread being allowed to stay on the main board? Hello PPP?
Arkady Renko Posted March 18, 2005 Posted March 18, 2005 Actually, he won't see any of that, according to his attorney. Yesterday or the day before he (the attorney) said that all of that money is gone as soon as it hits because of medical bills. 279894[/snapback] I'll freely admit that I could be wrong about the detail with this case. This is not a story I have been following too closely. Still, even if the husband has nothing to gain, that doesn't change my opinion on the parents' moral rights here. Obviously not even family member can have say here. Cousins and uncles obviously should have less sway. However, I am not sure considering our divorce rates in this country whether a spouse's opinion to let a patient die should supercede the parents' desire to keep the patient living.
Recommended Posts