Making tomorrows Military today: I love it when Daily Kos dismisses the republican argument

I love it when Daily Kos dismisses the republican argument

So I was reading Blogging Blago's Blunders in which he takes on the Schaivo issue by not taking it on. Good idea, but I cannot stand around. Kos, which I refuse to add any traffic to (find the link yourself) refers to this report (thank you abstractappeal.com)as the basis for their argument on why Michael Schaivo is an alright dude. Well, coming in as a conservative, I read it with a different eye and found a couple of statements that turned my stomach.

Mr. Pearse concludes that Michaels hearsay testimony about Theresas intent is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him of being the sole heir at law and by the chronology of this case, specifically referencing Michaels change in position relative to maintaining Theresa following the malpractice award.

This to me shows that even back in 20 DEC 98, the court appointed guardians were thinking that he was a scumbag who wanted her $700,000 purse she received from a somewhat bogus case of malpractice. Michael sued an Obstrician for her eating disorder. Before he met her, she was 250. When they met she was 150. She continued her weight loss down to 110. Then she had her heart attack due to bulemia (it goes into the whole thing in the report). Did Michael not notice that she was bulemic? This was the height of the bulemia issue on TV even. He cannot claim ignorance on that one. The court pulled this guardian because of the conclusions that he made, by the way. Imagine that...

Another Good series of paragraphs on this case....

It has been suggested that in the case of incapacitated persons, particularly those who have not expressed an advance directive, the clear and convincing evidence standard for establishing the intent to discontinue artificial life support is insufficient and incongruous. The insufficiency, it is argued, is because of the possibility of using information that is not accurate, complete or even honest. The incongruity is related to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that serves as the basis for decisions to convict and then execute capitol felons.

If persons unable to speak for themselves have decisions made on their behalf by guardians or family members, the potential for abuse, barring clear protections, could lead to a slippery slope of actions to terminate the lives of disabled and incompetent persons. And it is not difficult to imagine bad decisions being made in order to make life easier for a family or to avoid spending funds remaining in the estate on the maintenance of a person.

There is, of course, the other side of that slippery slope, which would be to keep people in a situation they would never dream of: unable to die, unable to communicate, dependent for everything, and unaware, being maintained principally or entirely through state resources and for reasons that may relate to guilt, fear, needs or wants of family members, rather than what the persons best wishes might otherwise have been.

And there is the chillingly practical, other public policy matter of the cost of maintaining persons diagnosed in persistent vegetative states and terminal conditions alive for potentially indefinite periods of time at what inevitably becomes public expense. Here the reasonable person standard, with respect to how one would want to be treated were they in Theresas shoes affects the discussion. This is not easy stuff, and should not be.

Does this nail the argument? Absolutely. Now which side do you fall on? Read the argument and decide, the post your comments here.