life support to be removed because it works

Not enough to make an opinion. Just what pray tell do you need to know other than the family all agrees to continue life support and the only reason to remove it is budgetary, all without the due process which was afforded to Terry Schiavo. Just seems to me that there should be a mandatory judicial review of pull the plug cases, just to make sure the wishes of family and victim are represented. Not enough to form an opinion, I've seen you form opinions on less than this Rob.

Don Erickson
Mr. California Republican

Not complaining about you opinion Don, but actually I figure the cause to protect innocent or defenseless Human life should be beyond judicial or any other review. Inocent or defenseless Human life should be protected simply because it is Human life lest (as we see everyday in the news) society begins to loose respect for Human life.

And if it weren't for caring for (and about) the sick, sometimes at the peril of the healthy we would not have leared techniques for helping overcome illnesses.

if the person on life support left clear instruction of what to do in the event of catastrophic illness/injury those wishes should be followed, in all other cases the family has the burden of determining the fate of the affected party. The courts should oversee this process to make sure it is completed correctly.

Don Erickson
Mr. California Republican

Food, water, medicine, heat, shelter, oxigen, etc. They all support life. Take any one of them away and life will end. So, should we give up and stop even tryng?

>> Should we give up and stop even trying? <<

When there's no quality of life or hope for its return, yes!

One of the reasons for the Texas law under attack is that, thanks to medical cost-cutting, there are now a limited number of ICU hospital beds available, even in large med centers like Houston's. Having a patient with no hope of recovery taking up one of those beds that could be supporting someone with a hope of recovery is a waste of valuable societal resources. However, the hospital (which, btw, is affiliated with the Episcopal Church) has now made a deal with the family to transfer the patient to a long-term care facility in Chicago. The problem turns out to be that there's no long-term care facility in the Houston area that could take the patient, and so for their own convenience the family was insisting she stay at St. Luke's, "because we can pay for it." See above for why that's a bad, selfish approach -- and that's precisely what the Texas law is intended to prevent. Before that law, as long as the family or insurance company paid the bill, there was no way to clear out a hopeless case and make room for someone who can be returned to health.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

... like Haleigh's?

Who has the right to judge the quality of someone else's life? Or that some else should not have a right to live. Our Bill of Rights does not say that we have an unalienable Right to Life unless someone doesn't like it.

Texas BTW, probably has the highest rate of [killing for convenience] in the Country.

''treatment deemed to be nonbeneficial''

The treatment was preserving an innocent and defenseless Human life.

I recall the story of Haleigh Poutre - The Girl in vegetative state reported to improve after DSS asked judges to withdraw life support

Our society is simply in too big a hurry to destroy rather than protect Human life. I don't mean just US society but all society everywhere.

She's abused by her mother and then by her adoptive or foster (I'm not sure which) parents. The only reason her stepfather wanted her kept alive was so he wouldn't be charged with murder.

The people that were supposed to take care of her were the ones that put her where she is.

This is one reason I believe in abortion. I would rather she have been aborted than wind up like this.

Diana

And I know you were'nt addressing me.

... unfortunately, people abuse children for various reasons.

and almost beaten to death at 11.

Diana

... you support aborting "unwanted" children because it's better to never have a chance at life than risk being abused.

Not all "unwanted" children are abused. Not all abused children were "unwanted". Why should Haliegh Poutre's situation support your position on abortion?

Kill the unborn so they don't face a POSSIBILITY of abuse? Of if they've already been here for years and then suffer abuse, suggest that they might have been better off not living at all?

Some of the most loved and best cared for children start out being "unwanted". I don't know of any evidence tying "unwanted" pregnancies to future abuse of that child.

that gave the child that little bit of extra time she needed.

If I [had] to choose I believe I'd rather be beaten half to death than be entirely dead. At least I'd have some [chance] at some sort of normalcy.

And who knows. This little girl may grow up and become one of our greatest leaders or scientests and set society on the right track.

Even though Doc's strongly urged terminating as the Child was reversed, turned around and hanging Himself at a time when Medical Science knew no better than to terminate [as otherwise mother and child would not survive], I'll always be greateful Mom went against the flow. I was alive then and nearly two careers later still I am alive. All because one person would not give up on life.

What do you make of Haliegh Poutre's recovery?

You better start praying you never get labeled a lost cause.