More Active Posts
Front Page
Fighting for life
 |
 44 Comments |
In a case reminiscent of the Terri Schiavo story, the father and mother of comatose 16-year-old Javona Peters are fighting over whether she lives or dies. Peters’ father wants his daughter to remain on life support, but her mother is seeking full custody so she can sue the hospital for malpractice … and potentially determine her daughter’s fate.
According to Steven Miles, a medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, the fate of the girl should be determined by the one “who speaks with the most loving and intimate knowledge of the daughter.” What do you think?
 |
Topic: WorldMagBlog |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: ethics, sanctity-of-life |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
Both comments and pings are currently closed. |  |
Share this: |
One more diversion
Insufficient data for an intelligent opinion.
A not so intelligent person will ride on Stubob’s coat tails.
Oh, yeah. This thing’ll go to 90 comments, but it won’t be about Javona Peters.
What do I think? I think that children suffer when their parents cease to love each other.
Surely primary custody was determined before the child was ill. Did that not give one or the other the right to make such decisions? If not, it should have.
As usual, the only winners are the lawyers who thrive on uncertainty and chaos.
I’ll join Random on Stubob’s coattails.
“Insufficient data” is correct.
What I don’t want to see is “third” parties getting involved. This should be left to the parents, the courts, and medical professionals.
Just don’t make this girl into a “poster child” for anyone’s agenda.
Amen and joining the coattail train. See what you started Dr. StuBob?
90 comments is nothing. What I dread is another three months of nonstop media feeding frenzy. And all the candidates will get involved and add their own vacuous opinions. I’m with Anlir on this one: Leave the family alone!
As a parent I would be upset if lawyers, the media etc tried to make my child’s tragedy part of an other controversy and have my child used to serve the agendas of others who are still embattled over something else.
It seems like the only reason people are comparing this case to Terri Schiavo is to have another excuse to talk about Terri Schiavo. So far the mother hasn’t made any statements about what decision she would make for the girl if granted the power, the dispute is only about suing rights. So why is the spectral angel of the pro-life debate even being mentioned?
Stubob, I agree with you!
Random you aren’t a doctor - what coat tail do you have, that one would hang onto?
Amphipolis - in almost ALL cases custody is given to the mother, unless she is unfit -
Victoria in what jurisdiction and century do you reside in that perpetuates this obvious sexist custodial right?
In almost ALL cases custody is split unless one is unfit. That is, in my century and my jurisdiction.
HRW
What country lane are you living on? You live in Canada,…… our Laws are different from yours, or hadn’t you noticed?
I know of only ONE situation where there is dual custody after a divorce. Custody is normally given to the mother, as the children live with one or the other parent, schools are involved, children don’t go to one school one week and another next week -
I hope our resident lawyer can enlighten us, but I believe that under law there is no legal presumption in favor of the mother getting custody of a child. But in actual practice a fair number of courts do customarily give custody to the mother. State laws prohibiting sex discrimination, child advocates, and father’s rights groups have successfully overturned laws that presumed the mother as the automatic guardian. I suppose it’s possible such laws still exist in a few states.
Is there still room on StuBob’s coattails?
If I get on them, can I still make a comment?
I see that the girl has been in a coma for a little more than two months. People have recovered fully from comas lasting longer than that. I think it is too early to be talking about removing life support, but…maybe I don’t have enough information.
TRR,
So far, no one has been quoted talking about removing life support except the conservative talking heads like Kristin, who are overly eager for the next ” culture of life showdown.”
What is the meaning of the mother’s supposed desire to gain control of the “fate” of her daughter?
Is it all just media pot-stirring? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised. There’s no real news to report now, huh?
Unfortunately, there is probably NO GOOD WAY to decide which parent to favor. The legacy of the blended family.
My ex-husband and I have joint custody with me having primary PHYSICAL. She spends every Thursday night with her daddy and every other weekend. When he has vacation time he asks to get her more. The media and the rest of us need to STAY OUT OF THIS. IT IS BETWEEN THESE PARENTS AND NOT THE REST OF US.
It appears in this particular case, that the father wants his daughter to continue to live - It’s been a very short time, perhaps she will come out of the ‘coma’ its happened before - Perhaps the father has MORE HOPE, and love than the mother -
I don’t think the general public should stay out of this anymore than we should have stayed out of the Terri Schiavo story - Too many people are much to anxious to pull the cord -
Tests are not always accurate -
Both Anlir and Kim have pointed out your presumption is not necessarily reality. I know its easy to dismiss my opinion with a little xenophobia but divorce law has evolved over the last 50 years in all Anglo-Saxon countries.
A quick check reveals Mass. law to assume equal custodial rights and equal access and time unless there are outstanding issues. Similar to Ontario, New York allows children to pick their custodial parent at the age of 13 or 14.
Note from Cornell Univ:
Under the common statutory provision, the parents of a child born within a marriage are joint guardians of that child and the rights of both parents are equal–each parent has an equal right to the custody of the child when they separate.
I don’t know what they should do. It’s a personal decision the parents need to make with the doctors.
If it were me, and it were one of my kids, I would leave them hooked up for now, given the coma is a relatively recent event. But, it isn’t me, and I am not in this situation–fortunately. It has to be heart-wrenching.
Kim, in the risk of sounding too extreme, this issue is only between the parents in the same way that the Holocaust was only between Hitler and the Jews. And BTW, we DID stay out of that one, to our shame.
If there is a moral imperative here, it should not be left up to the parents to violate that imperative simply for sentimental reasons. If the girl was conscious, and the parents were discussing whether to blow her brains out for the insurance money, society could not reasonably stay silent.
Of course, if you believe there is no moral imperative here, and that this life / death discussion amounts to merely squabbling over a technical detail of her care, then certainly you are right, and we should all butt out.
Given the young ladies age, the court will no doubt appoint an attorney to represent her interests. So we will have the following parties involved:
The parents - each represented by an attorney
The hospital
Her physician
Her court appointed advocate
After listening to all sides, the judge will issue a ruling.
That’s how the American judicial system works. It’s far from marching anyone off to the gas ovens.
John M
The ‘Holocaust’ was not just between the Jews and Hitler. I believe its obvious as to where you got this idea/belief, but its not true - The USA did not stay out of WW2, you have that wrong too -
Is this your way of changing the ‘topic’ of this thread? It sure looks like it!
A side note on historical accuracy. The US showed up two years late for the big event and, despite numerous opportunities, the US and its allies declined to interfere or attempt to stop the Holocaust from continuing (ie bomb rail links to the camps etc) A term created post WWII, the Holocaust was originally used to denote the Jewish genocide by the Nazis. Obviously, other genocides and mass murders occurred parallel to the Holocaust — gays, gypsies, slavs, the mentally defecient or ill, etc. The historical debate has always been whether to treat the holocaust as a unique event or just an other genocide.
You now may return to the thread; the attempt to continue the cultural wars at the expense of one family’s tragedy.
Nazis? This is as good a time as any to remind people that President Bush’s grandfather, Prescott Sheldon Bush, had ties to the Nazis, and used profits from his business activities to start the Bush family’s Texas energy investments. There is some basic information with citations on wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescott_Bush
Hamachitwo - 28
Wikipedia is not a reputable source for research - Most reputable Universities, will not accept it - I’m sure however, that it entertaines you -
Victoria
Of course Wikipedia is not accepted by Universities — its an encylcopaedia not a reputable academic journal. However, wikipedia does provide external links which you can follow such as;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html
or this BBC documentry looking at a plan to overthrow FDR;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
In any case, the trading with the enemy act does list Bush as among those whose property was seized. This is not that remarkable as general electric, ford and many other corporations continued to do business in Germany until ordered to stop in 1942, that is after Pearl Harbour.
If you don’t want to follow the links or engage in a discussion than by all means don’t comment but don’t engage without warrants of your own.
HRW
HRW you post……“If you don’t want to follow the links or engage in a discussion than by all means don’t comment but don’t engage without warrants of your own.”
I will comment on what I wish, without your permission. Whether I choose to use the links you provide is my choice not an obligation to you or anyone else -
Victoria,
Why so snarky? And, why do you dismiss a source of information without looking at the cites? The wikipedia article relies on many supporting documents. They even link to a FOX NEWS article.
Do you have information that would clear the Bush family, or is this merely an instance of attacking the messenger for political purposes?
CHEERS! HAPPY HOLIDAYS! NEW YEARS IS COMING!!
HamachiTwo
Because I don’t go to your wikipedia source I am now called snarky? You are a hoot!
This TOPIC was doomed to get off course, if it couldn’t be about WW2, then it had to be about Bush . . . . you are so transparent and so are a few others -
Victoria,
I understand you don’t have a means of refuting the facts in the wikipedia article. Never mind. Choose your own source for Prescott’s involvement with the Nazis and get back to us.
I sometimes wish you would just treat people better and use a more respectful tone when communicating here. You get into unnecessary dust-ups quite often. I recall you saying you come from a family of successful writers. Is your dad Ann Coulter? It is difficult to read whether you are joking, serious, nasty, happy, or snarky. Writing is a skill that requires practice, not genetics.
Cheers, my deer!
HamachiTwo - 34
If you are inferring that my father is a woman named Ann Coulter, you stoop much below anything I have ever known - Thankfully, I have never met anyone like you before -
That remark is a direct reflection on your lack of education, self control, but most importantly manners, which are completely VOID in your life, something you should have learned before you left for kindergarten, but apparently never acquired -
It is awfully funny though. Everyone knows your dad couldn’t be Ann Coulter. Ann is short for tranny and no longer has the proper donors.
You know that if this had been a same sex couple who had been together 50 years, a great grand nephew who the couple never met, could step in and order the disconnect and there is nothing they could do about it. What’s worse, the great grand nephew could sue for half the property and win. But of course, the religious understand that the two people should never have fallen in love but should spend their lives alone. That way, they could go to heaven. Gee, I wonder if they would be allowed to be together in heaven? Of course, they wouldn’t have “donors” so it wouldn’t be as much fun. Do they have donors in heaven? The Muslims do.
Dearest Victoria, whose hand I held gently in my own as we walked together into the light of the Afterblog,
I apologize sincerely. My pun was directed at your communication style, and not your family tree. I should have never suggested Coulter may be a man–or a relative of yours.
As we were, please. Do you question that the Bush family has profited from their business relationship with the Nazis? I realize you wish to dismiss wikipedia as a source, but do you dismiss their each of the cited sources as well?
With love,
HamachiTwo
Kristin: According to Steven Miles, a medical ethicist at the University of Minnesota Center for Bioethics, the fate of the girl should be determined by the one “who speaks with the most loving and intimate knowledge of the daughter.” What do you think?
Frank: I think Republicans in Congress should hold special hearings and subpoena her parents to determine “who speaks with the most loving and intimate knowledge of the daughter.”
Surely the solution to this matter must involve the Feddle (rhymes with “meddle”) Gummint somehow, and this is a wonderful opportunity for Republicans to demonstrate their devotion to the protection of innocent life. (Provided said life is not located in the Middle East, of course.)
Call me cynical …
The post is supposedly about a girl named Javona Peters. The bulk of the thread has been about Nazis, Prescott Bush, and Victoria’s writing style. The Internet at its best, I tell you.
I stand by #1. Random, Anlir, Janie, CoyoteBlue, and Victoria have agreed. What a coalition!
Ahhh, what can we say, StuBob. We don’t know enough to comment on the girl’s plight.
Frank in #38-
Perhaps Bill Frist could diagnose her using news report video, like he did for Terry Schaivo?
What do I think of ” the one “who speaks with the most loving and intimate knowledge of the daughter.” “? I think it is high-sounding twaddle that means nothing.
Actually now that I’ve had a second look at this phrase it’s quite creepy.
How about cutting her in half and giving one half to the father an the other half to the mother?