Arkady Renko

I agree with others on this thread that having her desires in writing could have saved a lot of awful trauma for this family. Hopefully at least some people will think more about this and that amount of good can come out of this bad situation.

Obviously we can accept that laws can be morally wrong?

I'll freely admit that I could be wrong about the detail with this case. This is not a story I have been following too closely. Still, even if the husband has nothing to gain, that doesn't change my opinion on the parents' moral rights here. Obviously not even family member can have say here. Cousins and uncles obviously should have less sway. However, I am not sure considering our divorce rates in this country whether a spouse's opinion to let a patient die should supercede the parents' desire to keep the patient living.

The parents argue that she would want to stay alive. I don't see why the husband's word should carry any more weight even if the law says it should. (I'm not saying they should ignore the law. My point is that the current law should be changed). I don't know if the parents should let it go or not. But since they are the ones who are caring for her and are her parents, I don't see why they shouldn't be given some say in this matter. Taking out the feeding tube will starve her to death. They aren't sure if she will die in a few weeks or a few days from this. If she supposedly is suffering in her state, why is starving her to death the solution. She is not having the breathing done for her. She simply just can't swallow or eat herself. That's it. There are a lot of people who have this same problem. That being said, if the parents were okay with her being killed, then I'd be okay with it as well. But since they are providing the care and want to keep her alive, I side with them. For what it's worth, I think Noonan's piece on the subject is worth a read. If you are pretty adamently on the husband's side I doubt you'd want to however.

I just find it interesting that the existence of just one network that speaks things a bit differently is so maddening to those on the left-side of the spectrum. "Turn it off, turn it off, I disagree with it!"

That would require FNC to actually be in the process of dying. Unlike many left-tilted news networks, it is living quite fine without a feeding-tube.

We have no clue what her stated request was or what she wants, if she knows what she wants now. This is not a right to die case.

It looks like it's coming out after all. http://apnews.myway.com//article/20050318/D88TI4JG2.html

I suppose I let that pitch kind hang in the strike zone, didn't I?

I know they defer to the spouse's wishes, but whether that is right or not is an open question in my opinion. Since the science behind what we can feel in various stages in brain damage is far from perfect, it's just not a cut and dry situation.

Either she's suffering and know's what's going on or she's vegetative. You can't have it both ways.

Very pithy...

I just think it is misleading to call this a right to die case when her wishes are not really known. It is a right to let your wife die v. a right to keep your daughter alive case.

If she cannot feel anything which people contend (despite the fact she responds to people in the room) how is she "suffering"? If she is a vegetable, how is she suffering? If she's a vegetable, then all of this drama doesn't do anything.

Perhaps I wouldn't either. However, if I was a parent and I still had hope and her husband was trying to get her killed in my mind, I would fight it pretty damn hard.

I don't want to assume anything about him, but he won't get the malpractice settlement if he divorces her. Also, she got this as of the result of a eating-disorder...

It's not like there is some living will here. The husband wants her dead and the parents don't. She breathes on her own. She just doesn't eat on her own. The husband has something to gain from her death: million dollar settlement and the ability to marry the woman he's been living with and had kids with. Why can't they just divorce her from her husband and have her cared for by her parents? That is what I don't understand. This is not a right to die case b/c the woman simply has not said she wants to die. We only have the husband's word that that is what she would want. The parents disagree.

I think we are talking about two different sites. I see that on the other one, not the savetoby.com

I just think he's being a little bit exploitive here. It is interesting, though, that people are willing to put 18,000 to save this bunny's life but that money could probably instead go to help save thousands of children dying in third world countries because they haven't been properly vaccinated. I guess one's rabbit's life is more important. Did he say would return the money if he didn't reach 50K?

What is wrong with people? It should be what is wrong with this person. The responses here that express revulsion to what happened are a testament to some good in most people.

What's wrong with consistency with the rules in either direction? One of the problems in football catching on with more people is the complexity of the rules. I have to explain which, college or pros, stops the clock on 1st downs, has the two foot rule, has the spot rule for pass interference, etc.

Although I do agree with the two Chiefs proposals. It shouldn't be a first down for illegal contact and pass interference should mirror college. In fact, I would be happy if both the NFL and college worked to have more consistentcy in their rules. Why not have one foot for possession with passes like in college? It seems like that would help out the offense and make the game simpler.

So they don't have to pay CBs 10 mil a year.

I'm a gray-haired GM for a football team. I have a crush on this kicker working for me. How do I reveal my feelings to him without risking rejection?

Took it long enough. When did the Indians first start playing it?