4/8     First Bolemic Lady and now a woman in Georgia is being starved to death.  In
        this woman's case however the woman's living will is being ignored.
        She's not in a persistenet vegitative state nor is she comatose.  The
        granddaughter says  "She has glaucoma and now this heart problem, and
        who would want to live with disabilities like these?"  She's also
        prayed about it apparently and says "Grandmama is old and I think it is
        time she went home to Jesus."
        \_ She's prayed about it...who are we to doubt the will of Jesus? -tom
           \_ Yeah, how would you feel as an atheist if someone prayed for you
              and decided you were ready to die? -emarkp
               \_ If I was incapable of understanding what was going on, I
                  don't think I'd feel much about it.  Why do you think the
                  grandmother is an atheist?  -tom
                  \_ I don't know if she's an atheist, but I'm fairly confident
                     that you are.  And the question was directed to you, not
                     her. -emarkp
                     \_ I'll ask again, since you obviously have infinite free
                        time: what the FUCK is your point?  Aside from the
                        fact that stirring up mindless bile among your
                        fellow social conservatives helps bring about your
                        theocracy, why are you so concerned with other
                        people's business?  Maybe you should take heed of
                        the fact that if Christian fundamentalists really do
                        take over this country, mormons won't fare any better
                        than us liberal athiests.
                        \_ The irony here is palpable.  I'm not for a
                           democratic theocracy.  I don't like the idea of
                           people being starved to death when their wishes are
                           unknown or known to be against dying. -emarkp
                        \_ Don't argue with him, tom. Bolemic Lady's probably already
                           a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous baptism. JPII
                           too most likely too by now.
                           \_ Well, if you're really not interested in
                              turning this country into a far-right theocracy,
                              you should re-think some things.  Do you really
                              not see what's going on here?  The media circuses
                              surrounding various moral issues is to soften up
                              appointments in May.  It is all part of a
                              so that the far right can force their extremist
                              have occured daily forever.  Doesn't the timing
                              of this explosion of politics seem just the
                              tiniest bit odd to you?  Think about it.  Based
                              on your other posts, I don't think you are an
                              evil guy, but I'm afraid that you have decided
                              to act as a tool of evil by spouting the party
                              line of the far-right theocrats.
                        \_ Don't argue with him, tom. Terri's probably
                           already a Mormon by now thanks to posthumous
                           baptism. JPII too most likely too by now.
                           \_ Aaron!?! You're back!  And you can't spell
                              "bulimic". -emarkp
                     \_ So you admit that your question was nothing but a
                        red herring?  OK, thanks.  I already answered your
                        question for me, and it added absolutely nothing to
                        the discussion.
                        I certainly don't see how someone whose brain and
                        bodily systems are all in an advanced state of
                        failure can think that Jesus wants her to live.  -tom
                        \_ Um, this subthread was about the Georgia woman, who
                           doesn't have the problems you describe. -emarkp
                           \_ yes, she does.   -tom
                              \_ Where does any story say that? -emarkp
               \_ Then it'd be like that six month old boy that a hospital
                  put to death in Texas, despite the pleas from this mother!
                  CULTURE OF LIFE!!
                  \_ obTroll:  Remind me again how many people Texas knocks
                     off every year?  Oh, that's different.  -John
          The only online story I can find about
        it is here: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43688
        Please don't dismiss it just because it's worldnetdaily.  I'll happily
        eat my words if the facts turn out to be different, but I've heard a
        phone conversation with Ken Mullinax (the elderly woman's nephew).  You
        can listen to it free here (windows media unfortunately):
        http://www.glennbeck.com/audio/free-audio.shtml (first link)
        -emarkp
        \_ Stop saying "starved to death". They are not being starved to death.
           Their disease process is killing them, not starvation.
           \_ What you meant to say was, most neurologists say a PVS patient
              doesn't suffer, since they have no perception of pain.
           \_ Wow, your ignorance is stunning.  What "disease" did "they" have?
              -emarkp
                \_ OK I was referring to Terri, not your new person.
                   \_ What "disease" did Terri have? -emarkp
                \_ OK I was referring to Bolemic Lady, not your new person.
                   \_ What "disease" did Bolemic Lady have? -emarkp
                        \_ Oh I don't know, maybe some shit called necrosis
                           rotting away in her brain from old events due to
                           her eating disorder. She was as close to dead
                           as possible, so don't even try to say she was
                           healthy. The only reason you and others think
                           she was functioning was because her eyes were
                           open in a creepy sort of way, fooling you into
                           believing she was engaging you. Yeah, the lack
                           of food tipped the scales finally, but that was
                           hardly a major blow. Starvation was the least of
                           her worries.
                           \_ She only needed food and water to survive, just
                              like you and me.  Also, I've never seen proof of
                              any eating disorder.  It's commonly noted, but
                              her family disputes that it was ever established.
                              Can you point to proof of her eating disorder?
                              -emarkp
                              \_ OK, how can we prove anything then? This
                                 actually brings up a very good point, which is
                                 that NONE of her situation is for us to
                                 discuss. And by us I mean anyone that isn't
                                 her, her husband, her parents, and her medical
                                 team (which means no dumbass lawmakers and
                                 politicians of course). The issue of one's end
                                 of life is an extremely personal issue that is
                                 only relevant to the few select people I
                                 mentioned, for they are the ONLY ones that
                                 know the true situation in all its intimate
                                 and fine detail. This is not our business (and
                                 it never was), so let's stop discussing it.
                                 \_ The *real* question in the issue is why did
                                    her husband have the only vote when there
                                    was doubt about her wishes.  *That's* what
                                    we need to discuss.  If Terri had left
                                    we need to discuss.  If Bolemic Lady had left
                                    written instructions, I'd have no beef.
                                    Though it may not have helped her, as it
                                    hasn't for the woman in Georgia. -emarkp
                                    \_ For CHRISSAKE!  He didn't have the only
                                       fucking vote.  There were multiple
                                       relations who testified to her wishes.
                                       Her parents had their day in court.
                                       The system did its job.  Get the hell
                                       over it.
                                       \_ No, the court system determined that
                                          he had the only vote.  I don't
                                          understand how the judge did that.
                                          -emarkp
                                          \_ Because he was 1) her husband,
                                             2) her legal guardian, and 3) when
                                             challenged, the judge decided not
                                             to change the guardianship.  And
                                             if you start screaming about his
                                             "infidelity" again, we've been
                                             through it.  Bury this dead horse.
        \_ Do you have a point?
        \_ Now wouldn't have it been a lot better if protestors rallied to this
           person's cause instead of Terri's?
           \_ Terri's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
           person's cause instead of Bolemic Lady's?
           \_ Bolemic Lady's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
           person's cause instead of Anorexia's?
           \_ Anorexia's story had more time to build up, but I'd say yes, that
              this is more important than her case because (if the facts are
              right) they're killing someone against her express wishes.
              -emarkp
        \_ If this is indeed true, and someone wrongly claimed to have power
           of attourney, this is bad, and should come to legal trouble for the
           hospice and for the claimant to PoA. However, as the only sources so
           far are wnd and a few right leaning blogs, I'll continue to be
           skeptical. --scotsman
           \_ Did you listen to the audio?
              \_ no.  but it appears to be an interview from someone who made
                 plenty of hay out of schiavo.  Get a journalist on the case
                 and i'll lose some skepticism.  check the validity of the
                 will. check out the PoA claims.  strip the hysterics and give
                 me the facts.
                 \_ Ah.  So you're not willing to evaluate the case because
                    Beck was in the don't-starve-Terri camp?  Nice piece of
                    Beck was in the don't-starve-Bolemic Lady camp?  Nice piece of
                    work. -emarkp
                    \_ Uh, no, i'm not willing to evaluate the case because
                       everything you've posted and everything on google news
                       about it is from interested parties. Find me a couple
                       disinterested observers as sources, and I'll consider
                       it.  For now it feels like an attempted echo chamber.
                       \_ Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota....
                    \_ People who lose credibility often find it tough
                       to regain anyones trust. The whole Terri Schiavo
                       crowd, by their pointless campaign to smear her
                       husband by spreading a bunch of lies, has lost
                       my trust and respect.
        \_ Now here is a non-WND link: link:csua.org/u/bm7 -emarkp
           \_ I don't doubt that even if this particular story is skewed,
              in the real world stuff like "Kid doesn't want to take care
              of granny anymore for [laziness|greed|revenge|stupidity] and
              sticks it to granny against her expressed wishes" is not new to
              the 21st century.
              \_ what is new is the idea that random nutjobs in Utah think
                 they should have something to do with the decision.  -tom
                 \_ What does Utah have to do with this? -emarkp
                    \_ Dum dum dum dum dum...
        \_ You mean you just discovered that people starve to death in America?
           This kind of stuff has been going on for a long time.
        \_ Hey 80 col Nazi!  You keep deleting lines that are 79 or 80 chars.
           What's your problem?  -emarkp
           \_ Yeah, doesn't he know that [79 columns|3 out of 4 neurologists
              who have done a neurological exam and say she's PVS for 12+
              years] is acceptable to most people?  [80 columns which causes
              automatic linebreaks|evil grandkid ignoring living will] crosses
              a line, though.
        \_ emarkp, do you realize all of the following:
           (1) In Feb 2000, the court determined "by clear and convincing
           evidence that Mrs. Schiavo would then elect to cease
           evidence that Mrs. Bolemic Lady would then elect to cease
           evidence that Mrs. Terri would then elect to cease
           life-prolonging procedures if she were competent to make her own
           decision".
           (2) Her parents appealed.
           (3) The Florida appeals court affirmed the decision in Jan 2001.
           (4) The Florida appeals court denied re-hearing in Feb 2001.
           (5) The Florida Supreme Court denied review of the case in Apr 2001.
           (6) Since then there have been multiple motions claiming new
           evidence, but all the courts have come back leaving the original
           decision intact.
           Sure, innocents are executed in capital crimes.  Just as well,
           Terri Schiavo might be a case where the court is wrong.  And, I can
           this might be a case where the court is wrong.  And, I can
           see how it would make sense to create a law that said you can't
           kill someone in a PVS unless they have put it in writing.  I can
           also see how it would make sense to have a law that says you can't
           kill a criminal unless there is no doubt (as opposed to beyond a
           reasonable doubt) that person committed a capital crime.  Your
           focus should be on creating the former law, and you do a great
           disservice to your cause by not clearly stating this.  In addition
           to saying "If Terri had left written instructions, I'd have no
           to saying "If Bolemic Lady had left written instructions, I'd have no
           beef", you should also say, "I support a law requiring such".  Stop
           complaining about the effects of the rules -- petition to change
           the rules.
           the rules. -jctwu
           \_ You do know that this was a judicial review of Judge Greer's
              findings of fact, right?  There was no 'de novo' review of the
              case.  Oh, and sign your name. -emarkp
              \_ Because congress is not allowed to just create new
                 jurisdictions.  Separation of powers.  The judge rightly
                 smacked congress down for it.
                 \_ This is not strictly correct. Art. 3 allows congress
                    to enact legislation that provides jurisdiction for
                    fed cts. The jurisdiction of fed cts is far more
                    limited than what the framers allowed in Art. 3.
                    Please note that the judges did not rule on whether
                    the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Bolemic Lady's
                    the act of congress creating jurisdiction for Terri's
                    case to be heard in fed ct was constitutional. Rather
                    he ruled on the temp restraining order that was sought
                    to keep Bolemic Lady alive. In order to be granted a TRO the
                    to keep Terri alive. In order to be granted a TRO the
                    party seeking it must show that they will most likely
                    previal at trial. The parents could not show this so
                    the lost the motion.
              \_ What is "this"?  Are you referring to (3)-(5), or the de novo
                 review that federal courts were ordered by law to conduct?
                 Before you answer, I urge you to consider carefully what I've
                 already written.  Why argue when we might already agree on
                 some key points? -jctwu
                 \_ "Ordered by law"...  Heheh.  The judge would have had a
                    hard time deciding which grounds to toss that law out on.
                    It's a veritable garden of unconstitutionality.
              \_ The standard for review of findings of facts by a ct of
                 appeals is clear error. The only other way to make new
                 findings of fact is to conduct a new trial.
                 While it can be argued that congress authorized this,
                 the text of the statute is not clear. The version I
                 read simply says 'de novo', it does not state whether
                 this is a new trial or merely review of the record. If
                 it is review of the record, then the dist ct only had
                 the power to review the record and reverse legal
                 conclusions or findings of fact that were clearly
                 erroneous; the dist ct would have to assume that the
                 trial ct's findings of facts were largely true.
                 Please also see above re the TRO. The parents did not
                 meet the requirements to be granted a TRO (which has
                 nothing to do w/ the standard of review).
                 Terri's case was handled properly w/in the law, even
                 if the judges didn't like the outcome, they were
                 constrained to act as they did. If they were to do
                 otherwise, all stability would be lost.
                 If the results in this case are not to your liking,
                 the proper course of action is to have statutes (fed
                 or state) enacted to ensure a different result.
                 --ranga
                 \_ yeah, like in Texas where Bush enacted a statute that
                    lets hospitals kill patients over the objections of
                    their caregivers.  -tom
                    \_ I do not know the legislative history of the
                       the Texas statute that you mention, however
                       statutes are normally enacted by the legislature
                       and signed into law by the Gov. Assuming that
                       this statute became law in that fashion, the
                       statute can be taken as an expression of the
                       views of the majority of the citizen of Texas
                       by their elected representatives. Perhaps the
                       views of the citizen differ from those of the
                       caregivers, but why should the views of the
                       caregivers be given precedence over those of
                       the general public?
                       If the enactment of such a statute bothers you
                       (1) don't live in Texas or (2) work to elect
                       people who hold other views.
                        \_ What kind of nonsense is this.  So when the
                           legislature of Indiana defined Pi to be 4,
                           that was a good thing since it was the will
                           of the people?
                           \_ No, because the bible states it should be 3.
                              Heretic!
                           \_ The value of pi is a fact, community
                              opinion doesn't define the value of
                              pi, nature does. In contrast, the
                              issue of how to handle end of life
                              cases are largely based on societal
                              conventions/opinion and are best
                              handled by the legislative process.
                              BTW, if pi were defined as 4, it
                              just means that we have to change
                              the rest of our number system, there
                              is nothing holy about 3.14159...
                              \_ If smart was defined as stupid, you would
                                 be smart.
                           \_ Get your facts right.  That never happened.
                              http://www.snopes.com/religion/pi.htm
                    \_ I'd be willing to bet that if Terri hadn't been white
                       and photogenic, we'd never have heard of her.