Major 'Sanctity of Life'-Dissonance
Bush rushes at midnight to sign a bill to block Terry Schiavo from being allowed to die, presumably because of his bottomless feeling for the sanctity of life.
And yet it turns out that the same man, back in Texas, made law (the "Texas Futile Care Law") the proposal that a person should be removed from life support , regardless of their stated wishes, if their guardian cannot afford insurance. So, apparently, what's important is not life, but rather, money (who would have thunk it, in such an oligarchy?) -- in particular, whether one has insurance in a society where Bush is 'insuring' that fewer and fewer have insurance!
Whether or not one believes that the Schiavo decision should be taken out of the husband's hands or not, what is clear is that Bush is grandstanding, and does not care one fig for the sanctity of life. According to his desires, the preservation of people's lives should rest on whether their caretakers have money. According to his adminstration's policy, prisoners in our care should be tortured to death. Against his wishes, it was decided that retarded people and children could not be executed (for the unaware, that means, killed).
Further lies can be 'enjoyed' from Bush's new decepticon, McClellan, who stated that the Texas Futile Care law "was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient’s family" -- even though the law itself [Section 166.046, Subsection (e)] states that "If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient..."
(Thanks to the Daily Kos for the documentation, information, and language.)
I respect Michael Schiavo for his remarks:
"Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years, they should worry about the pedophiles killing young girls," Schiavo said, referring to a local case. "Why doesn't Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let's talk about all the children who don't have homes."He said U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is leading a charge to extend Terri Schiavo's life, is a "little slithering snake" pandering for votes."
And yet it turns out that the same man, back in Texas, made law (the "Texas Futile Care Law") the proposal that a person should be removed from life support , regardless of their stated wishes, if their guardian cannot afford insurance. So, apparently, what's important is not life, but rather, money (who would have thunk it, in such an oligarchy?) -- in particular, whether one has insurance in a society where Bush is 'insuring' that fewer and fewer have insurance!
Whether or not one believes that the Schiavo decision should be taken out of the husband's hands or not, what is clear is that Bush is grandstanding, and does not care one fig for the sanctity of life. According to his desires, the preservation of people's lives should rest on whether their caretakers have money. According to his adminstration's policy, prisoners in our care should be tortured to death. Against his wishes, it was decided that retarded people and children could not be executed (for the unaware, that means, killed).
Further lies can be 'enjoyed' from Bush's new decepticon, McClellan, who stated that the Texas Futile Care law "was there to help ensure that actions were being taken that were in accordance with the wishes of the patient or the patient’s family" -- even though the law itself [Section 166.046, Subsection (e)] states that "If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient..."
(Thanks to the Daily Kos for the documentation, information, and language.)
I respect Michael Schiavo for his remarks:
"Instead of worrying about my wife, who was granted her wishes by the state courts the past seven years, they should worry about the pedophiles killing young girls," Schiavo said, referring to a local case. "Why doesn't Congress worry about people not having health insurance? Or the budget? Let's talk about all the children who don't have homes."He said U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, who is leading a charge to extend Terri Schiavo's life, is a "little slithering snake" pandering for votes."
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home