|
|
|
|
Euthanasia for the Judges It's pretty clear the Courts are in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS). And if they were consistent, the main-stream media would be telling the public that they're in a coma and being supported by ventilators and respirators and pacemakers and constant kidney dialysis. It would be a unanimous public verdict: take them off the life support because no one would want to live like that. You would have to be in a Persistent Vegetative State to believe that a husband whose wife allegedly confronted him with her desire to divorce him and who has since moved on to another "better half" has his old wife's best interests at heart. She made an off-hand comment that if she was ever a vegetable, she would want to die. He heard her himself! And it just happens that days after she confronted him, she became a vegetable! There's some kind of bone scan that may indicate she also had some broken bones possibly around the time she became a vegetable. Yes, if there is a possible pattern of abuse, that would prove to the vegetative Courts that her husband is to be entrusted with the guardianship of her life. But he dragged her around the world for years seeking a cure, spending money to justify the huge settlements he hoped to win from malpractice suits against the corporations that supposedly poisoned her. And they lost money and he made out like a bandit, and immediately and for the first time started spending her money to prove that she didn't want to be healed any more, but that it was all hopeless and she wanted to die. And at the same time he was making a new life shacking up with another young chickadee who was not made a vegetable by being poisoned by corporations. And he steadfastly refused to let anyone perform any kind of therapy on her old wife, because not only was there no hope that it would help her, but she wouldn't even have wanted it to help her if it could because she never wanted to be a vegetable. Just ask her husband who is having sex with some other woman and acting as the sole arbiter of the right to life of the wife who's now a vegetable. Supposedly. And while having sex with another woman and raising her children (his old wife had trouble getting pregnant, which is why he was so devoted to her and that's also how she got turned into a vegetable, taking fertility treatments, supposedly), he also won't let anyone test his old wife's brain to find out if it really is liquefied. It would be humiliating for a vegetable to undergo a test to find out if she's a vegetable, because she made it clear that if she was ever a vegetable, she wouldn't want to be tested to make sure she was a vegetable for real. It would be better just to assume she's a vegetable and let her die to put her out of his, er, I mean HER misery. And if there's a nurse who testified under oath that he talked about waiting impatiently for the b____ to die, well, that just proves that he has her best interests at heart. And if she testified that after his private visits she would end up in hypoglycemic shock, that would just prove that she was so energized by his presence that she overproduced insulin and lowered her blood sugar to unnatural levels. And that just proves that she would want to die because there's nothing worse for a vegetable than having low blood sugar. No, the Courts are clearly in a PVS. Only a liquefied brain would fail to notice that the only judge who examined the facts of the case presumed the vegetable a vegetable and ignored evidence that the hand-picked experts and advocates of death for the less-than-perfect were not looking at all the evidence. They fail to take account of evidence that the man who withheld treatment when it might have worked and refused to run tests that might have given the court the evidence needed to make its decision rest on more than disputed opinions, might not really have wanted the court to have the truth. Clearly the Courts need an informational feeding tube, since they can't swallow anything tinged with common sense. If there were eyewitnesses to this woman having committed mass murder, they would be demanding DNA evidence and if it was provided they would commute her death sentence to life without possibility of parole because she is incompetent to understand the reasons for her death. But since she is completely innocent (except perhaps of having wanted to divorce the husband who now wants her dead), and despite the fact that her nuclear family wants to take care of her until she dies of natural causes if that is what it takes, there is no need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt either 1) that she actually is a vegetable or 2) that if she were a vegetable she would want to be starved and dehydrated to death. And, of course, it took this case for the brain-dead media to feel a sudden urge to discover and point out that dying slowly of hunger and thirst is actually kind of entertaining. This is the same media that can't distinguish PVS from a coma, and can't tell the difference between a feeding tube and an iron lung. I wonder if anyone in the media has ever fasted for a few days, or heard stories of people dying of thirst begging to be put out of their misery. I suppose they were really reacting to the humiliation of the situation more than the physical agony they falsely claimed was wracking their bodies. Next I suppose we'll hear that drowning is a lark (puts a different spin on Chappaquiddick, I suppose) and that being burned alive is a bit like tasting a really hot tamale (they do dance around when you light people on fire, don't they?). It's time to disconnect the feeding tube from the Courts, and let them starve to death. And turn off the respirator and let the main-stream media suffocate from its inability to draw any breath but the stale old fallacies it keeps spewing in defiance of logic and the truth. That will allow the rest of us to go back to believing, in defiance of the holier-than-thou in the media and Courts, that human life is sacrosanct and that no third party has the right to decide for anyone at any time what the quality and value is of his or her life. At least that way no one can possibly use society's procedures of justice to kill an inconvenient spouse. Modified: 03/27/2005 |
|
|
All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com
SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com
Hits on this site:
|