http://harkin.senate.gov/news.cfm?id=234123
“I have long been an advocate for the rights of people with disabilities. Many in that community are keenly aware of the risk of incapacitation. In such cases, I believe that every precaution should be taken to learn and respect their desires regarding the removal of life supports.
“Over the last week, I have been working hard, and in good faith with Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), and others to come up with legislation that would allow federal review of the Terri Schiavo case. Yesterday afternoon, we came up with bipartisan measure that did just that and many of my Senate Republican and Democratic colleagues deserve praise for their hard and swift work.
Ivanhoe, I assume that the Notdeadyet group that you cited before is what you are calling a "disability rights organization". From the website you gave their position is:
Disability activists have called for a nationwide moratorium on the dehydration and starvation of people alleged to be in "persistent vegetative state." This would apply to individuals who do not have an advance directive or durable power of attorney.
I would presume that they mean a WRITTEN advance directive and that therefore, their disagreement with Terri's case is simply that Florida allows this advance directive to be proven by prior oral statements of the person now in the PVS. From a legal prespectuve then, all they are doing is disagreeing with the law of evidence in Florida. Is this then really something they have any expertise in at all?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Ivanhoe, I assume that the Notdeadyet group that you cited before is what you are calling a "disability rights organization". From the website you gave their position is:
Disability activists have called for a nationwide moratorium on the dehydration and starvation of people alleged to be in "persistent vegetative state." This woul ...[text shortened]... the law of evidence in Florida. Is this then really something they have any expertise in at all?
Do you have the conviction only "experts" can speak out on such matters ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeOf course not, but I fail to see why the opinions of this group on what should be the law of Evidence in Florida is entitled to any more respect than the opinion of the guy on the next stool at the bar I'll be at tonight. You're the one who keeps constantly citing the opinion of these groups, but you have given no explanation for why their opinion has any authority when all that they are complaining about is a technical legal issue in this case.
Do you have the conviction only "experts" can speak out on such matters ?
Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course not, but I fail to see why the opinions of this group on what should be the law of Evidence in Florida is entitled to any more respect than the opinion of the guy on the next stool at the bar I'll be at tonight. You're the one who keeps constantly citing the opinion of these groups, but you have given no explanation for why their op ...[text shortened]... any authority when all that they are complaining about is a technical legal issue in this case.
The voices of ALL organisations of disabled people are usually ignored in the national press.
You think that is good policy ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe national press in the United States sucks in my view being owned by a group of filthy rich parasites who are most interested in pandering to other filthy rich guys' political agendas and sensationalizing human misery for fun and profit. Their policies are directed to those twin goals, so I don't see how disability rights groups would be of much use to them. They do occasionally complain about laws which grant the disabled and handicapped certain employment and public access rights, as these are supposedly too much of a drain on business' bottom lines.
The voices of ALL organisations of disabled people are usually ignored in the national press.
You think that is good policy ?
That being said, I haven't seen a lot of actual legal analysis of this case by legal experts either although Dan Abrams had a somewhat informative discussion last night on MSNBC.
Originally posted by no1marauder
The national press in the United States sucks in my view being owned by a group of filthy rich parasites who are most interested in pandering to other filthy rich guys' political agenda and sensationalizing human misery for fun and profit. Their policies are directed to those twin goals.
That being said, I haven't seen a lot of actual ...[text shortened]... al experts either although Dan Abrams had a somewhat informative discussion last night on MSNBC.
Therefore I hope you can understand why I want to bring the voices of the organised disabled people organisations onto this debating forum. I want their voices to be heard.
I don't want them to be (dis)qualified in any way as "Chicken Littles" or to be lumped together with "far right idiots" or to be subjected to other actions that are designed to serve the same purpose.
Originally posted by ivanhoeFair enough; my rhetorical zeal on occasions exceeds what may be prudent, but I don't think I put these organizations in any of those categories intentionally (except to say they were being a tad Chicken Littleish which I believe is a fair comment). I have addressed their points regarding the Schiavo matter and do not see that their objection to testimony of a person's statements regarding their wishes is well-founded regarding these matters.
Therefore I hope you can understand why I want to bring the voices of the organised disabled people organisations onto this debating forum. I want their voices to be heard.
I don't want them to be (dis)qualified in any way as "Chicken Littles" or to be lumped together with "far right idiots" or to be subjected to other actions that are designed to serve the same purpose.