an *unwanted* kitten is what I said. If the family were unanimous that the patient would be horrified to be in her present condition I would not have an issue with this outcome though. As I said a couple hundred posts ago, if the patient wants to refuse medical care, the patient is entitled to do so. If the patient is unable to do so but it seems clear that the patient would want to do so or that doing so is in her best interests, withholding medical care is also appropriate in my opinion.
In this particular case both of these were being questioned, perhaps reasonably or perhaps as you suspect not; but the issue should have been reviewed, because what if a woman is dying who didn't want to? What did happen is that the federal court decided that the original Florida court acted in accordance with Florida law. While that is nice to know, that was not really the question, in my opinion. As the dissenting judge said, the intent was to have a fresh pair of eyes review the case and it did not happen. Dana On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:06:00 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > > In all of those cases as far as I know there is agreement as to who > > > speaks for the patient an/or what the patient would want. > > So, if the Shindler's agreed with Mr. Schiavo, then you'd be ok with > "putting her down like a kitten"? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151674 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
