Talk:Sun Hudson case

message: It's clear the case is called the "Sun Hudson case", IFAIK. There are two PoVs abt that, and abt calling the child "Sun Hudson".
# The mother chose the name, and it would be offensive not to refer to the child by it. So it has to be the name of the case.
# The mother is manifestly unfit, along with any mother who thinks she's been impregnated by the Sun, and would have been legally declared unfit in order to carry out the removal, if the doctors had not preferred a simpler legal process of doing the removal first which left the formal fitness question moot. Respecting her claim of motherhood would be a greater indignity than considering "infant Hudson" (which the chart may well have said) to be the name in effect given by the child's only true caregivers.
Here's the NPoV which is a requirement no matter how many arguments ("We don't do dignity here") to the contrary the two PoV's advocates turn up:
* There's nothing stilted about writing the text with phrases like "her son", and it introduces no confusion.
* Unless there's a term for the case that's as widely accepted as "Sun Hudson case", that's our term for the case. If there is an equally good title without "Sun" in it, establish that with Google counts from the mainstream press (and not from PoV advocates who would no doubt like to use their own slogans for it to spin-doctor the public impression of it).
--Jerzy•t 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sun Hudson"

message: The article previously stated that Ms. Hudson believed her son was an embodiment of the religious figure Jesus, after reading this article: http://www.nbc5.com/health/4286333/detail.html??z=dp&dpswid=1167317&dppid=65194 and watching this clip: http://www.danpalka.net/freemovies/hudson.mov it seems apparent that she does in fact mean the literal Sun, instead of Son. (PsychoSmith 02:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sun or Son?

message: The bioethicist section is very POV because it makes it seem like this is a right to life issue (bringing in Schiavo for example). The law under which Sun Hudson's care was withdrawn was co-written by the National Right to Life Committee and apparently was passed unanimously in both houses of the TX legislature. There might very well be precedent setting implications of this case but the current version does not make it clear that this is not a culture of death/life fight. The NRLC endorsement of the law and their subsequent non-repudiation make that clear. TMLutas (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: legal implications

message: This section is a mess. Critics note (which critics) but there is no cite for a critic. There were two acts, not one so that's just wrong. They claim (again no cite)that the Republicans are being hypocritical but there's no mention of the theology that makes a significant distinction between breathing assistance and food and water. There's a good conversation to be had here regarding the two cases but not so long as the other side is just a cardboard cutout of their actual positions. 
A hint: food and water provision is called ordinary care in a bunch of churches, most significantly the Catholic Church. A lot of people in the hospital would die if denied food and water who can breathe quite well on their own and who, in fact, walk out of the hospital sans feeding tube and live on for many years leading a normal life. A great many people think that denying ordinary care is inhumane. Breathing assistance over a long period is much less clearly ordinary care and lots of people have drawn the distinction that it's ok not to provide extraordinary care based on the individual circumstances of the patient. TMLutas (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a problem with neutrality in your objections. The section has problems, yes. The section needs citations, definitely. But to say it isn't neutral just because it doesn't delve into a religious debate is incorrect. There isn't a problem with neutrality here. There were comparisons to the Schiavo case. That is not an opinion, that is a fact. That's what the section is supposed to be about. You are asking for a simple re-arguing the Schiavo case, and that is not appropriate for this article. I am removing the neutrality tag and replacing it with a citation tag. I will also see if I can hunt down some sources. nut-meg (talk) 02:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons to the Terri Schiavo case section mess