Saturday, March 19, 2005


My f*cking g-d! Does congress have NOTHING better to do than to decide who shall live or die on a person by person basis? If they insist on keeping Terri whats-her-name alive, then by all rights, shouldn't they make sure that guy who kidnapped, raped and killed that 9yo girl (also in FL) get the same attention to not getting the dealth penalty? (side note: I love how three weeks went by and no one noticed the freshly dug grave 150 yds from where the child was kidnapped - the fact that they found the killer is slightly miraculous.)

Does Frist and Hasert think a patient in a completely vegetative state for over 15 years doesn't rack up major medical bills just because they don't eat? Since they may force her husband to keep her alive, does that force him to pay for her care? If the courts decide she must be kept alive, should they pay? 15 years of that type of medical care would make anyone eligible for state or disability assistance, but the government can't be expected to keep up her care - I mean, isn't congress the same group attempting to cut Medicaid and Medicare benefits?

Another side note: I laughed that people tried to break into the hospital with food and water. Because, I'm sure they were trained professionals who could just squash that all up and shove it down her somehow to keep her alive.

And what if she dies? I think that would be one tense after-funeral gathering. Who'll bring the Jello salad (w/the suspended canned fruit)?

Seriously though - congress should not be allowed to decide what the courts can and cannot rule on when it's convenient for them. Right now they stand here:

Abortion - higher court decision
Gay Marriage - courts should be allowed decide
Patient Rights - depends on person or amount of media coverage

No comments: