1.
The controversy here is should Shiavo have her feeding tube removed or not. She is in a vegetative state so she has no decison here and the controversy is who is responsible for her life. Her husband says that she should die and had wishes to die instead of being in a vegetative state. Her parents say that she expresses emotion and even though she is severely disabled she is still somewhat conscious.
2. Her parents would like her to stay alive, most likely for religous reasons. Her husband says that she should die because she had wishes to not live if she was in such a state. But some say that her husband may have other motives since he has already has children with another woman.
3. Religon has become a factor in here. Apparently a memo has been circulating around Washington saying the Republicans need to support that she continues to live to protect the religous right.
4.Yes, the article explains the complexity of the case. Many situations dealing with courts can be very confusing and this case is no exception. Quoted from the article: " Congress enacted an unusual law allowing Federal courts to review the case--but a lwasuit under the law had so little chance of ultimate success that there is no need to preserve Shiavo's live." A lawsuit under a law, state courts and federal courts. This case is very complex especially with this particular legal battle. This article expains in breadth the case but I think one would need to do a little more research in order to full understand the Shiavo situation.
1 comment:
Just so you know how complex this case is,fifteen years ago the husband successfully sued and rec'd a settlement of a million dollars re his wife's damaged health,malpractice insurer,seems a doctor misssed healing class or some such.
The wife's family got not a penny,nada.The husband is down to his last 48,000.Could that be why he suggests terminating the life giving support? Heard this on KGO radio in san francisco.I paraphrase but this was the impression left me , the listener.
Post a Comment