document.write(' | ');document.write("Nancy");document.write("
CA
4/1/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("No one has the right to intervene when it comes to the right to die. I still can not for the life of me understand how some individuals have enough compassion to put an animal to sleep when it's suffering, but we will allow human beings to have to suffer, soemtimes, horrible, terminal deaths. It is a very personal issue and one that the government should not be involved in.");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Bob");document.write("
NH
3/30/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("David Rivkin says that only a notarized living will, executed with requisite solemnity, and that clearly expresses a patients wishes should be given any consideration in such cases as that of Terri Shiavo. Unfortunately even such a document could be subject to legal challenge and leaves up in the air the cases of newborns, minor children, and those judged incompetent to execute such a living will. A parent or guardian will have to act in their behalf and disputes may arise. If Mr. Rivkin is married does he really know nothing about what his wife's wishes might be in the absence of a written document? Does he believe his wife's parents know her wishes better than he does? In a dispute who will act in the interest of the patient in these cases. Mr. Pollock said that we don't even allow dogs to starve to death. Many terminally ill patients stop eating. Should such feeding be mandated in the absense of a clear directive from the patient? I doubt you would want to make a rule that the wishes of blood relatives should supercede those of a spouse. It could just as easily be the spouse who wants to continues life sustaining measures and the parents who want to stop them. What would your panel wish for themselves if they were to end up in the same condition as Terri? How would they feel, if ideed they could feel in such a state, if a relative or some outside interest were to ingnore those wishes even if expressed in good faith.");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Anne");document.write("
VA
3/27/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("To Mary, MN, your point taken the discussion DOESN'T signify nothing. I am frightened by the hysteria among people. Alexis, Joseph both said things I never considered. Raw emotion, unchecked, surely cannot provide answers to this very difficult situation.");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Tom");document.write("
MI
3/27/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("This is the THIRD time I am sending you this, and I will KEEP sending it until you CEASE your CENSORSHIP of anything critical of your show and PBS and POST IT and After an interminable three weeks of PBS asking for $ and hoping that replacing your show with the worst possible programming would help them, they did show you again last night. I was looking forward to watching you after 3 weeks of deprivation, BUT i was 100% dissappointed that you lowered yourselves to the worst cable channels and wasted most of my time with this horrible Schiavo case. ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' | ');document.write("Judy");document.write("
WI
3/27/2005 | ");document.write(' | ');document.write("Mr. Gigot, I respect you because, even though I hold different opinions, you usually are fair and balanced in your news coverage. That's why I feel so compelled to send an email about this week's Journal Editorial Report panel discussion on the Terri Shiavo case. Of all the unending blanket coverage on this case, I have never listened to a more one-sided, biased discussion. I think we all expect better from PBS and from you. Disappointed ");document.write(' |
|
');document.write(' |
|  |
');