[Deleted]

Deleted User · 03-23-2005, 05:19 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

Tazman · 03-23-2005, 05:22 AM

Kind of odd congress and Bush didn't jump right on this one, of course it would have made Bush a bigger hypocrite on this issue then he already is! Man I just love polotics!!![:@]

Deleted User · 03-23-2005, 05:34 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

tardfarmer · 03-23-2005, 05:44 AM

Quote:

I also expect a great deal of silence on this thread........................

Why would you expect silence on this this thread? You know my feelings on this - what they did was potentially wrong.

If the child had a 100% chance of dying AND was on artificial means that do not include feeding/hydration then it is moral for the MOTHER to make that decision.

Denying food and water is totally wrong, but then again letting a doctor decide who lives or dies is also totally wrong.

If the kid was terminal, was on a ventilator and the mother made the decision, this would not be inconsistent with my line of thinking.

Deleted User · 03-23-2005, 05:54 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

Tazman · 03-23-2005, 05:56 AM

Quote:

This Texas law is just a kick-back to the medical-insurance complex

(in my most sarcastic voice) REEEAAALLLY!

tardfarmer · 03-23-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

This Texas law is just a kick-back to the medical-insurance complex

Potentially, but I can guarantee you that if the mother was allowed to make the decision and she had implored help from the churches she would have gotten the money.

Deleted User · 03-23-2005, 07:32 AM

[Deleted by Admins]

tardfarmer · 03-23-2005, 07:33 AM

Quote:

We'll never know cause the medical-insurance complex got to cut their losses - and the law backed'em up.

Oh trust me, i'm not fan of insurance companies

david m · 03-23-2005, 07:33 AM

i read about that case, and i feel that the doctor did the best thing under the circumstances.