AP For Starvation Judge
justin-cypherpunks at soze.net
Sat Mar 26 22:00:47 PST 2005
On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
> Justin writes:
> > If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty
> > on his head for that, too.
> Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain
> injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke
> people the same way dehydrating and starving them does.
She is a corpse with a heartbeat. Artificially feeding her against her
wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence
over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law
changed) is sick. She has become a doll for her parents, who are too
immature to grasp the concepts of "life," "death," and "dignity."
Presumably they're still stuck on "God" and "selfishness."
> > If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent
> > than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree
> > there.
> I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly
> wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain
> stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has
> meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care.
If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy)
that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see
doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is
willing to pay? (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay
originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the
case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough
donations to keep her alive for millenia.)
That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I
suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? It would seem to be
inconsistent if you did. How can someone choose to die if anyone else
can veto that choice?
> The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his
> pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President
> of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority
> of both houses of Congress.
Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any
jurisdiction over this whatsoever. The courts do.
> Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more
> equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs
That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this
case. The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should
be used to keep her alive. If you don't like it, again, lobby for a
change to the law.
The strong control the weak. The majority controls the minority. All
we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority
(maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where
some people managed to get into positions of influence within the
governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs.
I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants
Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, "Mere factual
innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly
reached." Republicans in general can't get anything right because their
belief system is less coherent than any other. At least the supreme
court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least. That's only
because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all
know the decision would be affirmed. Taking the case would just waste
Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix,
AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses
the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The
unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one
another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy