pywacket: (Default)
pywacket ([personal profile] pywacket) wrote2005-03-21 10:58 pm

(no subject)

I'm so angry at the hypocrisy of GW that I could scream. Why is it OK for a baby to die basically at the hands of a bill he signed (that allows doctors to stop treatment even if it is against the express wishes of the family because of MONEY!!!) but he'll sign a special order to keep poor, pathetic Terry Schiavo alive against her HUSBAND'S wishes. I thought Republicans were for less governement and state's rights? What the hell are they doing intervening in something the states have already decided? What the hell are they doing getting in the middle of a marriage?

What about the kids that don't have enough to eat? What about underfunded schools? What about health care for everyone? What about some more jobs? Why is so much money and time and effort going toward this situation? I'm just sickened for everyone concerned. This isn't the business of the federal government.


“Inappropriate treatment” was defined under the 1999 Texas law as ‘medical treatment for which the patient cannot pay’. Ok, I'm overstating the case--but if that, while not explicit, is implicit. Who can find another medical facility ready to take on a difficult, possibly hopeless case? Those with money or insurance. Who can't? medicaid patients. Or those with out insurance. Like the six month old that had his feeding tube removed this week. Why didn't they keep a fresh new life, full of possiblity alive instead of wishing for a reversal in a brain damaged 40 year old woman--who made herself sick?

Citations are the DailyKos and thinkprogress.org.

And could somebody PLEASE please please find some balls and give them to a reporter and get him or her to expose Tom Delay for the grandstanding slimy unethical creep that he is.

GOD..I haven't been this angry about politics since Reagan.

[identity profile] psychokitten78.livejournal.com 2005-03-22 06:03 am (UTC)(link)
For the most part I agree with you...but I will say with this particular case...well I find some odd things about it...like her husband recieving a large insurance settlement and dening his wife any kind of rehabilitative care...the doctors have also wanted to see if she has the ability to swallow on her own...however he will not allow them to see if she is able to eat...Testimony from nurses where they state that she can somewhat communicate in small words...like Mom and Hi...and on and on...I just see some slippery slopes here...were her wishes that she didn't want to be kept alive by breathing machines and whatnot that artificially kept her heart beating...or saying she'd rather starve to death??? mainly because we're talking about the differance of 'life support' and 'nourishment'...I just don't think it's ethical to starve anyone to death (reguardless of age...6 month olds included)...

That's where I see a differance with the case...and yes...I agree with you about the shotty health care and people just letting those without insurances and whatnot just being ignored...and I think that is WRONG...also the treatment of those with state health insurance like medicaid...I remember my mom being forced out of the hospital within 4 days of being cut nearly in half and having a kidney removed b/c she was on medicaid...the doctor flat out told her...if she had private insurance she would stay in the hospital for at least 2 weeks, but since she had medicaid...she had to leave...which is BULLSHIT...

[identity profile] jetgrrl01.livejournal.com 2005-03-22 12:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I have totally become a turtle. I mean, I listen to NPR and check out the headlines online, but I just can't deal with the news lately, so I find myself turning off the radio when it's about anything going on with Bush or this latest case. It's so depressing. :(