It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Amuk
Let one of us unfair double standard mods step in and tell everyone to chill out a bit. Lets stick to the topic which is how grateful we are that the Government is taking away all those nasty decisions we used to have to make.
Thank God for the Republicans, the party of Freedom
I know Terri would probibly agree that these 15 years of suffering were worth it if it could give them a few more percentage points at the polls.
Originally posted by RANT
The result: Hospitals can pull life support if patients unable to pay!
...
Bravo Mr. President you hypocritical bastard! And lo the masses rallied to turn over more individual rights to corporations and government. :shk:
Originally posted by krt1967
How come the mods can use words like that "bastard" but members get warnings and banned?
Originally posted by LA_Maximus
Cmon now, lets give this lady a chance! She's been denied a TV in her room and any other stimuli that might help her condition.
ven her condition is suspect, who's to say she was not poisioned?
Yeah walhallamarbil, but who the hell is that Judge to over rule the will of the people?
When (1) judge can over-ride the will of the majority, than this is no longer a democracy.
rant and pisky's article
A patient's inability to pay for medical care combined with a prognosis that renders further care futile are two reasons a hospital might suggest cutting off life support, the chief medical officer at St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital said Monday.
Originally posted by djohnsto77
RANT, do you have a link that says this law came into being under Bush? From what I've seen on the Internet it appears this existed in Texas before Bush was ever governor.
Thanks
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Hmm, well I'm no lawyer and don't really know about the Texas case. However, in this case the money to take care of her exists due to a malpractice case, yet the husband refuses to use it for any further tests or therapy. If she dies, he'll get the remainder of the trust.
from WyrdeOne
Hmmmm....
I think now, on top of being a cry baby and a partisan, you're a liar.
Sucks to be you dude.
Originally posted by RANT
Thank you for your tirelessly hypocritical efforts to remove all automony of the individual.
First as Governer of Texas in 1999 you signed the bill into law allowing hospitals to withdraw life support from patients, over the objections of the family, if hospital decision makers consider the treatment to be nonbeneficial.
The result: Hospitals can pull life support if patients unable to pay!
And fiscal conservatives cheered!
Now you've wrangled and rode more suffering to a further end... not only does the hospital have more say than the family (in this case the spouse and legal guardian), but Congress and you have more control over private decisions than ever!
Bravo Mr. President you hypocritical bastard! And lo the masses rallied to turn over more individual rights to corporations and government. :shk:
Originally posted by jsobecky
In your scenario, who will pay for the patient with no hope for recovery?
Don't you see that it is better to put the decision-making power back in the right hands, and take it out of the government's hands?
Originally posted by djohnsto77
Hmm, well I'm no lawyer and don't really know about the Texas case. However, in this case the money to take care of her exists due to a malpractice case, yet the husband refuses to use it for any further tests or therapy. If she dies, he'll get the remainder of the trust.