Will Terry Schiavo be killed ?

Originally posted by no1marauder
That is a red herring; since the law presumes that infants are not capable of making informed decisions regarding their own well-being, such decisions are left to others to make for them. Do you dispute the general principle that persons have a right to refuse medical treatment?

Do parents/guardians have the right to refuse medical treatment for an infant/minor? If yes, then I do not dispute the general principle in theory (although I still dispute the practice). If no, then I dispute the general principle.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Do parents/guardians have the right to refuse medical treatment for an infant/minor? If yes, then I do not dispute the general principle in theory (although I still dispute the practice). If no, then I dispute the general principle.

This is a disputed issue in law and another red herring. If the general principle doesn't exist, then no one has the right to refuse medical treatment, period, so who may or may not refuse it for an infant would be irrelevant. It's very simple: do you accept that human beings have a right to refuse medical treatment as a general rule or not? Of course, there could always be exceptions to the general principle, such as treatment for an infectitious disease which could be spread to others, but if you deny the general principle then I wish you would just say so.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This is a disputed issue in law and another red herring. If the general principle doesn't exist, then no one has the right to refuse medical treatment, period, so who may or may not refuse it for an infant would be irrelevant. It's very simple: do you accept that human beings have a right to refuse medical treatment as a general rule or not? Of ...[text shortened]... ld be spread to others, but if you deny the general principle then I wish you would just say so.

If the positive form of the general rule ("People have the right to refuse medical treatment"😉 exists, but admits to exceptions (e.g. infants, people with communicable diseases); then it is purely a matter of syntax to say that the opposite of the general rule ("People do not have the right to refuse medical treatment"😉 exists, but admits to exceptions (e.g. adults with non-communicable ailments). How do you determine which is the general rule?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If the positive form of the general rule ("People have the right to refuse medical treatment"😉 exists, but admits to exceptions (e.g. infants, people with communicable diseases); then it is purely a matter of syntax to say that the opposite of the general rule ("People do not have the right to refuse medical treatment"😉 exists, but admits to excep ...[text shortened]... ns (e.g. adults with non-communicable ailments). How do you determine which is the general rule?

I'm not really a big fan of semantic gamesmanship, which you seem to be devolving to. If we say someone has a natural and fundamental right, such as the right to freedom of expression, this does not mean such right is absolute, but does mean it exists and will be protected in the vast majority of circumstances. If you refuse to grant that people have any natural rights at all, please say so. If you concede that people have some natural rights, please explain why you believe that the right to decide whether you have a particular medical treatment or not shouldn't be one of them.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I'm not really a big fan of semantic gamesmanship, which you seem to be devolving to. If we say someone has a natural and fundamental right, such as the right to freedom of expression, this does not mean such right is absolute, but does mean it exists and will be protected in the vast majority of circumstances. If you refuse to grant that people ...[text shortened]... ght to decide whether you have a particular medical treatment or not shouldn't be one of them.

I do not say that natural rights do not exist at all; nor do I say that the right to accept or refuse medical treatment does not exist. What I do say is that adults of sound mind have the right to make an informed decision about whether to accept or refuse medical treatment.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I do not say that natural rights do not exist at all; nor do I say that the right to accept or refuse medical treatment does not exist. What I do say is that adults of sound mind have the right to make an informed decision about whether to accept or refuse medical treatment.

My original question was: Do you dispute the general principle that persons have a right to refuse medical treatment?

Your answer is you do not so long as A) the persons are adults of sound mind; and B) Their decision is "informed". I see no problem with A and as Terri Schiavo made such a decision prior to her going into a PVS I fail to see why her decision shouldn't be honored.

B suffers from vagueness to a certain extent; what level of "informed" is required? Obviously a lay person will never have the level of medical expertise to make as "informed" a decision as a doctor. Would a simple "reasonable man" standard be sufficient; i.e. the person was possessed of the same level of information a reasonable person in the same situation would need to make that decision? If so, I also believe that would be satisfied here as Terri had the information what an irreversible PVS was, and that a feeding tube could keep her alive even though her cognitive functions were gone. She elected to make her wishes known that she would not want to avail herself of such medical treatment. I fail to see why that shouldn't be sufficient to have her right to refuse such treatment honored.

Originally posted by no1marauder
My original question was: Do you dispute the general principle that persons have a right to refuse medical treatment?

Your answer is you do not so long as A) the persons are adults of sound mind; and B) Their decisio ...[text shortened]... be sufficient to have her right to refuse such treatment honored.

What a hoot.

Don't you know that ambulance chasers like yourself couldn't survive without doctors?

Oh. Sorry. THAT is why you are defending them. So you can sue them. Sorry. I missed the subtlety of your greed and lack of imagination. Sorry.

In case you missed it... "She" never wrote down what she wanted to happen. So then it becomes lawyers wanting a part of the life insurance policy. The only way they collect... and the only way the greedy bastard husband collects is by her "death".

One important thing that NOBODY has brought up. How to explain her broken back and broken femur when the "terrible accident" occured?

There is not a single mention of how those bones got broken. But I'll bet that the husband "knows" and i'll bet that the marauding, predatory lawyers know.

Too bad she can't testify. Isn't it?