Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: delete  (Read 13825 times)

_BP_

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 2594
  • Think. Wait. Fast.
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #220 on: March 30, 2005, 10:10:39 AM »
I'm guessing you don't know a whole lot about biology or medicine, too.  Brain cells don't just "regrow" themselves like skin cells.  People with spinal cord damage can sometimes recover or improve.  People that lose chunks of their brain can never get it back.  And for people like Terri, who has lost almost their entire cerebral cortex are not going to just grow a new one.  There's never going to be a new pill that will make it happen.  There's no new chemical therapy.

And the Bush administratio has all but outlawed stem cell research, the only possible advancement that I could even imagine would help.  But due to current politics, I'm pessimistic that any real breakthroughs would happen even in *my* lifetime, and i'm in my early 20s

Very valid point Jacy.  Isn't it ironic that the same fools that say Terri will recover, are also the ones that prevent stem cell research because a stem cell is ALIVE!!  morons.

Hahah true, one minute they are discounting science <"who says stem cells can ever work anyhow, we're creating false hope!" Or "Well we're just not sure if HIV can be transmitted through tears" Or "Global Warming, what Global Warming?"

then the other minute they're all throwing on their labcoats and preaching about medical miracles..

Freaking hilarious.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
1776 TO 2006

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27221
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #221 on: March 30, 2005, 10:40:29 AM »
get back to julie when court says there's significant issue about her medical status, eh?

That could be awhile. Sadly, I think the court will not rule in their favor.

exactly.  courts have not somehow suggested that there real question about evidence of her medical condition, as you suggested.  sorry, but she brain dead.  wish it not so.

LaneSwerver

  • Guest
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #222 on: March 30, 2005, 11:04:40 AM »
Bush helped pass a law in texas allowing hospitals to pull the plug even against the family's wishes if the family can't cough up the $ for treatment and can't find another hospital willing to take the patient.

This statement is completely false. I disproved this in another thread. Maybe this one, I don't know. I linked to the full text of the statute, which mentions absolutely NOTHING about "pulling the plug" due to lack of funds.

Xony

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1281
    • AOL Instant Messenger - jimaxony
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #223 on: March 30, 2005, 11:12:44 AM »
Lane?  Lane Swerver?

whatchu doing here boy?

LaneSwerver

  • Guest
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #224 on: March 30, 2005, 11:13:39 AM »
Lane?  Lane Swerver?

whatchu doing here boy?

Sorry. Disproving a myth. I'm done now and returning to my happy threads.

giffy

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Mo
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #225 on: March 30, 2005, 11:20:40 AM »
Lets say it would be possible to regrow a brain, do you think that she would then be the same person. The part of her brain that has memories and awarness has been destoryed. In order to heal her we would have to know the location of every atom in her brain before her accident. Then we would ahve to be able to put new atoms in the same alignment. So after we over come Hiesenburgs uncertainity princible, we only have to master time travel and nanotechnology. Pretty easy if you ask me. Even still, lets say we could do all that, would it justify rejecting her wishes. People have a right to decide what medical care they want to receive. If I want I can refuse any treatment I want. By the same arguemnt for keeping her alive I shoudl be able to infinge on anyones rights if I think it is in their interest. Sounds like a nanny state to me.

Bush helped pass a law in texas allowing hospitals to pull the plug even against the family's wishes if the family can't cough up the $ for treatment and can't find another hospital willing to take the patient.

This statement is completely false. I disproved this in another thread. Maybe this one, I don't know. I linked to the full text of the statute, which mentions absolutely NOTHING about "pulling the plug" due to lack of funds.

Not directly, but it winds up working that way. A person who is on medicare or some insurance plans cannot simply take there love one to another facility at thier own expense, a person with resources can.

JonR0921

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #226 on: March 30, 2005, 11:31:30 AM »
Help me understand something, please.  I understand that the Eleventh Circuit has agreed to consider a request for a new hearing on whether the feeding tube should be reconnected. In truth though, what good is it?  Terri's father has conceded that she's "past the point of no return."

By the time they decide this, she'll be gone, and the Schindlers will be crying that the Eleventh Cir. didn't act fast enough.  I smell another due process argument cooking.

LaneSwerver

  • Guest
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #227 on: March 30, 2005, 11:52:16 AM »
Bush helped pass a law in texas allowing hospitals to pull the plug even against the family's wishes if the family can't cough up the $ for treatment and can't find another hospital willing to take the patient.

This statement is completely false. I disproved this in another thread. Maybe this one, I don't know. I linked to the full text of the statute, which mentions absolutely NOTHING about "pulling the plug" due to lack of funds.

Not directly, but it winds up working that way. A person who is on medicare or some insurance plans cannot simply take there love one to another facility at thier own expense, a person with resources can.

That, too, is inaccurate. Medicare and Medicaid both cover transfers to other faciliites, ambulance and all. For individuals that have neither, social workers in the hospital will arrange for alternative funding. In the end, ambulance services will very frequently transport people without any insurance as a write-off. Believe me...I did it for a long time.

Finance is not an issue in that statute.

EDIT: Here's the link to the statute, if you're interested:  http://www.tapm.org/vault/Texas%20Advance%20Directives%20Act.pdf

BigTex

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #228 on: March 30, 2005, 12:45:24 PM »
Bush helped pass a law in texas allowing hospitals to pull the plug even against the family's wishes if the family can't cough up the $ for treatment and can't find another hospital willing to take the patient.

This statement is completely false. I disproved this in another thread. Maybe this one, I don't know. I linked to the full text of the statute, which mentions absolutely NOTHING about "pulling the plug" due to lack of funds.

Good grief. Of course the phrase "pull the plug due to lack of funds" didn't appear in the bill, but that was the effect. The bill effectively did the following:

If a hospital decided that it was medically hopeless to continue life sustaining treatment the hospital could decide to cease such treatment regardless of the patient's family's wishes. The hospital had to provide at least 7 days for the patient's family to find an alternative care facility.

Of course, it goes without saying, if the family could pony up the money the hospital would continue the treatment in question. And, there's a reason the hopital wants to stop the treatment - they see it as ineffective and expensive. Those same reasons will be barriers to finding any other care facility to take the patient within 7 days.

So, yes, the end effect of the bill in practice is: "if you can't pony up the money the hospital can pull the plug if they feel the treatment is ineffective, regardless of the family's wishes".

BigTex

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 379
    • View Profile
Re: Terry Schiavo
« Reply #229 on: March 30, 2005, 12:53:13 PM »
Medicare and Medicaid both cover transfers to other faciliites, ambulance and all. For individuals that have neither, social workers in the hospital will arrange for alternative funding. In the end, ambulance services will very frequently transport people without any insurance as a write-off.

This is a total red-herring. Sure, funds can be found to cover the transfer costs (ambulance, etc.) but that's not the issue. It's the cost of the actual treatment once the patient is transferred to the new care facility that is the issue (respirators, feeding tubes, drugs, etc.). *That* cost will be a significant factor in why a lot of care facilities will refuse the transfer request, not the miniscule cost of the logistics of the actual transfer itself.

So, again, if you don't have the dough you get the plug pulled. That's the real-world consequence of the bill. Not that i really mind this bill - a hospital should be allowed to say "look it's hopeless, this is a waste of money" at some point. But it's the hypocrisy that bothers me.