Terri Shaivo thread

[Steff]

No. Doesn't matter to me.

 

It's my opinion that he's doing what she asked.

 

That's all it boils down to.. her request and who I believe when that request is stated. I don't believe her parents or her sister.

 

And no I don't believe the comment about him calling her a b****.

[Steff]

I really believe that having kids changes opinions on this. Steff, Wino, ChiSoxy, and Queen are all kidless. Trust me things change when you have kids. Emotions and attachments are different. I know I would have argued to let the husband make the decision 18 years ago.

 

 

I respect the point you are making, and I'm sure it's valid for some.. but I don't agree with it one bit and I don't think it's fair to generalize the responses of those that do not have children.

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art.../503220347/1134

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is he reading SOXTALK? I've only been telling him to do this for about 4 days now :rolly

 

I agree I don't think it will have much affect because the burden that Greer put on the parents as to do with her condition & not Michael's guardianship. But at least it will allow Terri's family the right to see her die with a little more dignity if he should get it passed.

 

More importantly this issue has really galvanized the Christian voting block. Wow!

They sort of woke up with the gay marriage thing but the protests & the flooding of calls is rivaling that of the superbowl obscenity & we all know what that led to.

 

As I said earlier this had the potential of being a powder-keg on the Democrats in 2006 & it seems to be doing just that.

The headline at Yahoo is focusing on the judge being a Clinton appt.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ged_woman_judge

 

They might represent a little over 40% of Americans but they are a whole lot more galvanized than the rest. Death prayer wishes on Dems? Weren't the Dems suppose to woo some of the Christians to their side for 2006?

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[JUGGERNAUT]

I respect the point you are making, and I'm sure it's valid for some.. but I don't agree with it one bit and I don't think it's fair to generalize the responses of those that do not have children.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well Steff we can agree on something. I agree whether you are raising kids or not it shouldn't cloud your impartiality on this issue. For me it doesn't.

 

My contention is whether Schiavo's conduct is befitting that of a spousal guardian.

I contend as Gov Bush does that it does not. Therefore guardianship should be stripped from Michael & granted to Terri's parents.

Edited March 22, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Texsox]

I respect the point you are making, and I'm sure it's valid for some.. but I don't agree with it one bit and I don't think it's fair to generalize the responses of those that do not have children.

 

 

I lost a brother to drunk driving, don't you think that has an effect on my opinions on drunk driving? The father who lost a son to steroids, don't you think that has an effect on his opinion of steroids? Don't you think having a child effects your opinion on a parents role?

 

I am not generalizing. Everyone who I have spoken to about this, who are in favor of her dying, do not have children. That's a fact, not a generalization. The point I am making from that fact, is having children changes some people's opinions about some things. It is an observation I made.

 

Some people go through life with the same opinions they had when they are 18. For others, getting married, perhaps having a friend die, or face a life threatening illness, changes them. They look at things differently. I accept that those things do not change everyone, perhaps getting married didn't change your opinion of spousal rights.

 

And I've been thinking about unconditional love and what it means to me. If this was my wife, I would be by her side every day, talking to her. Not living with another woman having kids. But as you mentioned, everyone has an opinion.

 

One final note regarding feeding tubes as life support. To arbitrarily say you wouldn't want this life support means if you were ever in a coma you would want it pulled. Her brain state is a much more valid reason for pushing for her speedy death, than a feeding tube. Every paraplegic or person in a coma, needs assistance receiving nourishment. I don't believe you are saying she should die because she requires a feeding tube.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Texsox

[CanOfCorn]

What this case should do...is make every single one of us go out, seek a lawyer, and write up a living will. Especially if you don't want to live like this. If the government wants to keep her alive, then they should take over her care. I think her husband has done enough and maybe it's just too much for him to handle.

 

As for the wife/children argument, I have been married (and soon will be again) and I couldn't see my wife in a vegetative state for 15 years...that's too much suffering for anyone. I don't have kids, but I would think that keeping a child alive is pretty selfish. The problem is she can't make the decision for herself anymore and she's not going to get better. Let her go. Either way it's a slippery slope.

[jackie hayes]

I am not generalizing. Everyone who I have spoken to about this, who are in favor of her dying, do not have children. That's a fact, not a generalization. The point I am making from that fact, is having children changes some people's opinions about some things. It is an observation I made.

 

...

 

And I've been thinking about unconditional love and what it means to me. If this was my wife, I would be by her side every day, talking to her. Not living with another woman having kids.  But as you mentioned, everyone has an opinion.

 

One final note regarding feeding tubes as life support. To arbitrarily say you wouldn't want this life support means if you were ever in a coma you would want it pulled. Her brain state is a much more valid reason for pushing for her speedy death, than a feeding tube. Every paraplegic or person in a coma, needs assistance receiving nourishment. I don't believe you are saying she should die because she requires a feeding tube.

You are generalizing if you think that applies generally. I've spoken to people with kids who believe she should be allowed to pass, and that's fact too.

 

As for staying with her, the question is whether she, Terri, is even there anymore. So much of her brain is simply gone, she's no longer capable of memory or thought, it's very difficult to say that she exists in any real sense.

 

And noone, noone, is saying that she should die b/c she's on a feeding tube.

[Texsox]

You are generalizing if you think that applies generally.  I've spoken to people with kids who believe she should be allowed to pass, and that's fact too.

 

As for staying with her, the question is whether she, Terri, is even there anymore.  So much of her brain is simply gone, she's no longer capable of memory or thought, it's very difficult to say that she exists in any real sense.

 

And noone, noone, is saying that she should die b/c she's on a feeding tube.

 

As I stated, I believe that being a parent changes a person's thinking. So I accept that I bring that bias to my opinion. Are you stating that being a parent would not effect your thinking? Would you then also argue that being religious would not effect your opinion?

 

The "husband" wants to determine her fate. He wants to claim spousal rights, while living with someone else. Steff mentioned it was unconditional love, I disagree. IMHO unconditional love would have me at my wife's bed side, not starting a new family. It makes a mockery of his marriage, and the vows he took. I would have more respect for him if he said, Terri would want me to go on with my life, her parents are willing to accept the responsibility for her care, so I am filing for divorce and allowing her parents to care for her.

 

Steff said that because Terri needs a feeding tube Terri is on life support, and Terri did not want to be on life support. I countered that Terri's brain capability if a far more compelling reason to killing her quickly. Many people have found themselves relying on feeding tubes and are not terminal.

 

Keeping her alive, at worse, is no benefit and at best may allow a miracle to happen.

Killing her, at worse, ends a life, and at best ___________________?

 

Someone want to fill in the blank? Tell me how Terri benefits by dying? The same people who wish her a speedy death, claim she has no brain activity and can not sense pain. Remember no anesthesia was used when they removed the feeding tube. Something that is standard in a fully functional person.

[Texsox]

What this case should do...is make every single one of us go out, seek a lawyer, and write up a living will.  Especially if you don't want to live like this.  If the government wants to keep her alive, then they should take over her care.  I think her husband has done enough and maybe it's just too much for him to handle. 

 

As for the wife/children argument, I have been married (and soon will be again) and I couldn't see my wife in a vegetative state for 15 years...that's too much suffering for anyone.  I don't have kids, but I would think that keeping a child alive is pretty selfish.  The problem is she can't make the decision for herself anymore and she's not going to get better.  Let her go.  Either way it's a slippery slope.

 

Who is suffering? Terri? That's what makes this so interesting. One side believes she has no feeling, no brain activity, and is basically already dead and incapable of suffering, so she should die.

 

I do not believe most people would not want their ex-spouse making this decision, perhaps you would.

 

I appreciate everyone's opinion. This is a matter of choice and I would passionately argue for Terri's right to die, if she had a written document or something more than her ex-spouses word. Her parents have known her all her life. Maybe they too know her.

 

I know how much I love my family. If there was the smallest of hope, I would cling to it, embrace it, and do everything in my power to try and make that happen. I could not imagine turning my back and starting a new family. I watched my parents bury my brother. Parents watching their children die is not the circle of life. Parents give children live, to toss aside their feelings in all this is perverse.

 

I bring my biases, my faith, my family, all my life experiences to this opinion. I will not deny that. People who can set aside themselves, and their experiences, and make a computer like decision have a different make up than me.

 

My wife and I have similar living wills and they do not have explicit verbiage about feeding tubes. It does have verbiage for brain activity and the use of a ventilator.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Texsox

[JUGGERNAUT]

I got around to reading the Sun-Times today & they've got good coverage throughout the paper. A couple things came to the light that some of you might not have known & I failed to mention:

 

1-USSC ruled on this issue in 1990 on behalf of an 82 IL man. The USSC set the precedent where guardians/proxies as well as the state as the right to take someone off life support where there is clear & concise evidence that's what the person wanted.

 

This would explain why the USSC refused to hear the Schiavo case. There already exists a precedent that establishes a high bar for determining right -to-die.

 

2-The Sun-Times reports there are only 2 substantial links to determining what Terri wanted:

Michael's assertion that upon watching a tv program Terri said "I would never want to live like that."

 

The Schindler's assertion that Terri was a devout practicing Catholic prior to her brain damage & in their conversations with her she expressed a right-to-live.

 

Everything else amounts to character witnesses & opinion offered to the court.

 

3- The Sun-Times alledges that at most there is 300K left of the original settlement money.

 

4- There was no mention of any life insurance policy on Terri's life.

 

5- Judge Greer has ruled on the case in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, & 2004

to let Terr die. In that process Michael shifted his initial motion to one of seeking the right to disconnect the tubes to that of leaving it to the discretion of the courts. This is why most feel Michael's loss of guardianship will not have an effect on the case.

 

6- Judge Greer has essentially taken the opposite view of the USSC decision. Placing a heavy burden on the Schindler's to make a convincing argument attesting to Terri's right to live. The USSC decision placed the heavy burden on the right to die.

 

7- The Schindler may be winning the court of public opinion. There was reference to many Americans having seen the audio & video tapes released over the weekend. This would pre-date the latest polls on the issue. Many columnists, radio stations, tv networks, newspapers, & of course congressmen have been flooded with e-mails, v-mails, & letters coming out in support of Terri's right-to-live.

 

One columnist after viewing & hearing the tapes came to the conclusion

he just didn't know & he felt we couldn't know. He stated that was rare for any media person to admit that. He seemed to be leaning in favor of letting her live.

 

8- The biggest concern with the recent congressional law is that it is so generic on the issue of right-to-die & right-to-live that it is foreseeable that the Fed could rule on the right-to-die just as much as the right-to-live.

This is unlikely considering a motion must make it's way through the appelate courts before it can be taken before the Fed.

 

Note: On O'Reilly tonight he confirmed that Terri is not feeling pain. She is heavily medicated at this time.

 

The Reaper is due to arrive for Terri in the next 10 days

Edited March 23, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[sec159row2]

http://www.nccbuscc.org/prolife/tdocs/part2.htm

Homologous artificial insemination within marriage cannot be admitted except for those cases in which the technical means is not a substitute for the conjugal act but serves to facilitate and to help so that the act attains its natural purpose.

 

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1090180451119

Reminder of where to get the DETAILED FACTS on the Schiavo case.

 

Summary of political lines of thought on this matter:

social liberals - support Michael's right to kill & cremate his wife over regardless of his being engaged to another woman & fathering two of her children

 

social conservatives - the right to life trumps the right to die in nearly all circumstances

 

social moderates - Call into question whether Michael should have remained Terri's guardian when he became formally engaged to another woman.  He could not legally marry her w/out divorcing his wife & it would seem the $ he was awarded outside of Terri's medical care costs was the driving factor in not divorcing Terri at the time.

 

 

 

some people have too much free time.....

[jackie hayes]

As I stated, I believe that being a parent changes a person's thinking. So I accept that I bring that bias to my opinion.  Are you stating that being a parent would not effect your thinking? Would you then also argue that being religious would not effect your opinion?

 

The "husband" wants to determine her fate. He wants to claim spousal rights, while living with someone else. Steff mentioned it was unconditional love, I disagree. IMHO unconditional love would have me at my wife's bed side, not starting a new family. It makes a mockery of his marriage, and the vows he took. I would have more respect for him if he said, Terri would want me to go on with my life, her parents are willing to accept the responsibility for her care, so I am filing for divorce and allowing her parents to care for her.

 

Steff said that because Terri needs a feeding tube Terri is on life support, and Terri did not want to be on life support. I countered that Terri's brain capability if a far more compelling reason to killing her quickly. Many people have found themselves relying on feeding tubes and are not terminal.

 

Keeping her alive, at worse, is no benefit and at best may allow a miracle to happen.

Killing her, at worse, ends a life, and at best ___________________?

 

Someone want to fill in the blank?  Tell me how Terri benefits by dying? The same people who wish her a speedy death, claim she has no brain activity and can not sense pain. Remember no anesthesia was used when they removed the feeding tube. Something that is standard in a fully functional person.

I am saying that being a parent does not necessarily change one's views on this issue. Not that it doesn't change your thinking on any issue one iota. You suggested that only the childless support the decision to let her pass, and that's flat wrong. As for being religious, it depends on your convictions. And it depends on hers. This general Catholic thing is weak, though. The majority of American Catholics support abortion rights, etc, and still consider themselves devout. Substituting Catholic doctrine for Schiavo's thoughts is unconvincing.

 

You didn't address my point. Many people don't believe his wife exists anymore. (Memory, thought -- these strike me as essential in defining identity.) He can sit by her body, but he's not sitting by her. So imo this is not cheating, just moving on. "Till death..." She died many years ago.

 

I don't think Steff was saying we should have all people on feeding tubes pulled, but she can correct me if I'm wrong on that...

 

If she wanted to pass rather than be kept 'alive' in this way, then her memory is harmed by keeping her tissue alive. That's how she benefits. Certainly if my brain had mostly disappeared and been replaced by fluid, that's what I would want. Perhaps that's not important to you, but it would be to me.

 

Frankly, the ONLY hope she has is a miracle. So, if you believe that God every once in a while violates the rules of science for stuff like this, then I can understand your position. But then you should lobby hard to require that all measures are taken to preserve life, always, in the event of a miracle. I don't believe anyone's ready to do that.

 

There was an article in the Trib today about removing feeding tubes, that this is neither an unusual nor painful practice in terminal patients.

[Texsox]

I do not believe I ever said only the childless, I mentioned the people here who posted the most times to allow her to die, are all childless. I also pointed out that every person I spoke with in the real world that was pro-death, was also childless. So my conclusion is being a parent may alter ones opinions.

 

IMHO seeing your baby for the first time, holding them in a quiet house late at night, changing diapers, teaching them to walk, ride a bike, staying up late when they are dating, sending them off to college, walking your daughter down a wedding aisle, all are included in some people's opinions. If you believe that wouldn't effect your judgement, who am I to disagree with how you believe you will feel. You may be able to give life to someone, then turn over their life or death to another person sho has "moved on with his life" and is only staying involved to see that she dies.

 

I also am not arguing that she should not be allowed to die. In fact, if she had a living will and expressed a desire to not live in this state (absent of brain activity), I would not only support her right to die, but be petitioning congress (again) that these humans should be allowed to choose their manner of death. No one would choose dehydration. She desires, at the minimum, the same painless, speedy death we would give a mass murderer. So her dying is not something I object to.

 

What I do object to is the person who is claiming as her spouse he should be allowed to decide. The courts aren't saying she should die. Doctors aren't saying she should die. The only person who is petitioning for her to die, is living with another woman and his children. Her Doctors and Nurses have been on countless shows saying she should live.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Texsox

[JUGGERNAUT]

Hannity & Combes:

 

1-Terri has never had an MRI or a PET which would present a much clearer picture of her condition.

 

2-There is the possibility that in the event of Terri's death Bobby Schindler will pursue a murder charge against Michael Schiavo.

 

3- Bobby Schindler stated that what the Federal law does is afford right-to-life patients the same rights that convicted killers receive on death row. That is the right to question whether due process rights were violated in the state's deliberation of the case.

 

4- They are awaiting on a decision by the Federal Court of Appeals in ATL

as to whether the tube is to be re-inserted.

 

5- Carla Sauer Iyer has very damaging testimony against Schiavo.

Her sworn affidavit states that Schiavo would ask when she is going to die,

how long before she dies, & why hasn't she died yet in 1995-1996.

 

She likewise stated that Terri was noticeably upset after Michael's visits

in 1995-1996. Carla also indicates that Terri actually was speaking small

words after that time. There are two more affidavits by care givers

supporting Carla's testimony. She appearently said "Mommy help me."

 

There have been 33 medical professionals who have observed Terri who

do not believe that Terri is in a PVS.

 

We're looking at this from colored classes but it's a different experience if you are there live watching your sister looking worse & worse as each day goes by.

 

Even if I was a neurosurgeon & knew better I would cling to any hope even if it was less than 1% to keep my sister alive if I thought deep down inside that's what she wanted.

 

I don't know if this helps but we've talked about this extensively over the weekend. We both believe in sci-tech's future & the leap's our society will make in the decades to come. That's heavily influencing our decision.

Our living will: If either of us should find ourselves in a state where our right-to-die rights are called into question we choose right-to-live. The only exception being that of unanimous medical opinion in conjunction with either herself or me that we are experiencing intolerable pain.

 

When you pursue a field in science, engineering, R&D, there is one central theme that should follow you throughout your life: nothing is impossible.

We don't look upon limits as universal but rather temporary. They exist simply because we lack the knowledge to overcome them.

[jackie hayes]

I do not believe I ever said only the childless, I mentioned the people here who posted the most times to allow her to die, are all childless. I also pointed out that every person I spoke with in the real world that was pro-death, was also childless. So my conclusion is being a parent may alter ones opinions.

 

IMHO seeing your baby for the first time, holding them in a quiet house late at night, changing diapers, teaching them to walk, ride a bike, staying up late when they are dating, sending them off to college, walking your daughter down a wedding aisle, all are included in some people's opinions. If you believe that wouldn't effect your judgement, who am I to disagree with how you believe you will feel. You may be able to give life to someone, then turn over their life or death to another person sho has "moved on with his life" and is only staying involved to see that she dies.

Right, exactly, I "may be" a cold hearted ass who doesn't care if his child dies. That's entirely fair.

 

I'm saying I've spoken to parents -- also in the real world -- who believe that her parents have to accept that their daughter is gone. So the unanimity you're claiming is wrong. Or they must be heartless bastards, right? After all, any parent who loves their kid must ignore all respectable medical opinion because a miracle might happen.

 

Or...they could say, these doctors have more expertise than me, and they all say there's no hope -- none. And as much as I loved my child while alive, she's gone now, and I am going to have to come to grips with that.

 

Nah, they've got to be psychopaths. That's a much better explanation.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Update on the case: It currently reside in the 11th Crt Ct of Appeals in ATL.

The motion filed is based on Whittemore not adhering to the sections of the new Schiavo law:

Section 2: - clearly requires the court determine de novo the merits of the case

 

Section 3: - requires the judge to grant a temporary restraining order because he cannot fulfill his or her recognized duty to review the case de novo without first keeping Terri Schiavo alive

 

They knew what they were doing when they wrote the bill, those voting in the Senate passed the bill unanimously, the house vote was 203-58.

 

The likely outcome is that the Appealate court will recognize the new law

& order the tubes back. If that decision is rendered Michael armed by the ACLU will immed file an appeal to the USSC in an effort to declare the Schiavo law uncons.

Edited March 23, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

[Texsox]

Right, exactly, I "may be" a cold hearted ass who doesn't care if his child dies.  That's entirely fair.

 

I'm saying I've spoken to parents -- also in the real world -- who believe that her parents have to accept that their daughter is gone.  So the unanimity you're claiming is wrong.  Or they must be heartless bastards, right?  After all, any parent who loves their kid must ignore all respectable medical opinion because a miracle might happen.

 

Or...they could say, these doctors have more expertise than me, and they all say there's no hope -- none.  And as much as I loved my child while alive, she's gone now, and I am going to have to come to grips with that.

 

Nah, they've got to be psychopaths.  That's a much better explanation.

 

Would you please read my posts. I have spent time carefully reading yours, you are misstating my position and not addressing the #1 objection to this situation. The person who is claiming to be her spouse has moved on with his life, is living with another woman and has two kids.

 

All the people that * I* (myself, me, and no one else) have spoken with, about a dozen, who advocate death, have no children. I am not implying anything else. Where did I claim any unanimous that all people?? You are misrepresenting my words. If you believe that personal experiences do not have anything to your views, that's you, I believe most people are shaped by their experiences and education. If you believe that experiences, education have nothing to do with your opinions fine. What are your opinions based on?

 

My objection and please read carefully, is that the one person who has the authority right now to have her die is the man who is now living with someone else. No Doctor is recommending her to die. Many Doctors are claiming she has no hope of recovery and I accept that. But no Doctor who is caring for her, is recommending she be killed. The one person who has her life or death in his hands is her legal husband. I do not believe he is in the best position to make that decision.

Edited March 23, 2005 by Texsox

[JUGGERNAUT]

Tex, I don't want to interrupt your chat but you overlooked an important part. Judge Greer assumed the role of guardian over Terri's life when Michael deferred that decision to the courts. This didn't occur in the first decision (2000) but it did occur in the subsequent decisions. Essentially when Michael knew he the Judge was on his side he changed his motion.

 

This is one of the basis that some feel Terri's due process rights were denied. She did not have legal representation at the time this decision was rendered. Her parents legal representation does not constitute her own & many feel her right to live/die could not be assumed by the court without legal representation.

[Texsox]

Tex, I don't want to interrupt your chat but you overlooked an important part. Judge Greer assumed the role of guardian over Terri's life when Michael deferred that decision to the courts.  This didn't occur in the first decision (2000) but it did occur in the subsequent decisions.  Essentially when Michael knew he the Judge was on his side he changed his motion.

 

I especially do not like the government ever choosing death for a citizen. I can not think of a single situation where that would be acceptable to me. I am against the death penalty. I do not trust the government that much.

 

If her Doctors, the ones that worked with her, recomended pulling the feeding tube and the husband went along, I would feel less certain of my position. The parents have been more involved the past years, while her husband was busy starting a new life. I've heard from several nurses that he doesn't even visit. Understandable because he believes she is "dead". He moved away from her, let her parents care for her. I am not stating that in all cases parent's rights would trump a spouses. It is not the norm for the parents to survive their children.

 

I have yet to hear anyone claim how she would be harmed by staying alive. Her wishes are only told by the very person who agrees with them.

 

If it was her parents wanting her to die and her husband was keeping her alive, would y'all be defending his decision? Or is this a matter of believing she is better off dead, and no matter who makes the decision, you would be in agreement?

[JUGGERNAUT]

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11203641.htm

It doesn't look good. I can't blame Whittemore. To grant the restraining order the Schindlers need to produce at least 1 legal argument suggesting that Florida procedurally failed to insure Terri's rights. They didn't do that.

 

It's as the article suggests. They were hoping the emotional fervor surrounding the case would be enough to grant the order & buy them more time. The biggest weakness coming from the fact that FL law allows a judge to assume a surrogate role in decisions amounting to Terri's care.

That's the law in FL so you can't argue it on that basis. You have to make the claim it violated her US constitutional rights. It doesn't seem like they did that.

 

I imagine the appelate court is going to work hard in trying to find any path in what the Schindler's have filed to expand upon it to grant the order. Similar to what happened in the 2000 election w the USSC. They took whatever they could use in the motion & expanded upon it to make their case.

[Texsox]

While I feel sorry for the parents, and can not fathom the nightmare they are finding themselves in, I do find some comfort in that her passing will cause many people the world over to contemplate what they would want done in this situation. Basically what I am sending to my lawyer is something along these lines.

 

If my wife and parents agree with my primary care Doctor, that's it. It should be reviewed on some sort of schedule. I debated about including my kids, and at this time have decided I did not wish to burden them with this decision. As they mature, or my parents pass away, I will reconsider.

 

If there is debate, and no consensus, err on the side of keeping me alive.

 

My brain activity is paramount to any decision.

I would rather have my electric work than the plumbing or nerves.

Drooling and random eye movements isn't enough.

I pray by then we pass an assisted suicide or right to die law to allow a Doctor to put me down like a lame horse.

 

Basically if I was in Terri's case I would want to die.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Is anyone else sick of this already? I am and I also dont like the fact that Congress and the president are meddling in this. I think they have more important things to worry about.

[Texsox]

Is anyone else sick of this already?  I am and I also dont like the fact that Congress and the president are meddling in this.  I think they have more important things to worry about.

Welcome back Nuke, this must be a twilight zone. I am agreeing with the GOPerheads and Nuke isn't. I'm actually agreeing with Hannity et. al. BTW, the life or death of a citizen should be important enough to get our government involved. I can not think of anything mroe important that life or death. well maybe Buerhle's toe

 

You liberal puss

Edited March 23, 2005 by Texsox

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Welcome back Nuke, this must be a twilight zone. I ama greeing with the GOPerheads and Nuke isn't. I'm actually agreeing with Hannity et. al.

 

You liberal puss   

 

I am completely neutral on this issue. I'm just sick of hearing about it constantly.

[Texsox]

I am completely neutral on this issue.  I'm just sick of hearing about it constantly.

 

You are the first person who I know is neutral. Since life or death decisions are probably more common in your line of work than mine, is a living will required for military personnel? Is the decision left up to the military? How is it handled in the service?

Edited March 23, 2005 by Texsox