On Thu, 24 Mar 2005 18:56:55 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Clams Canino" wrote in message
link.net...

"JimH" wrote in message news:a5KdnYy7Icthod7fRVn-

One does have to ask why her husband wants it now removed, especially
since
he never brought up what her *wish* was until 10 years after the
hospitalization and after he received his part of the financial
settlement
from the original court case.

Perhaps he long ago accepted that she was a breathing corpse and
deliberately waited till after the settlement to start the termination
procedings. In and of itself that's not real scummy, that's the legal
business (scummy enough).

And perhaps not. So why not err in the favor of life? What harm was there
keeping her alive, especially since her parents accepted all responsibility
for her welfare, including costs. Why not let these latest allegations be
investigated?



At least he didn't try to find a way to get her a job in the occupation
she
is best suited for - a paid organ doner. THAT would have been scummy.

The autopsy / deliberate injury crap is a smoke screen thrown out there by
desperate people. She's dead Jim.

-W


I agree. She is now dead. But she wasn't on March 18th, 2005.

So how about an autopsy? Why is Michael refusing one?


If foul play was suspected by the authorities, couldn't they just *order* one?
Who is requesting an autopsy? If I were the husband I'd say leave the body alone
whether I'd done anything or not.

What harm was there? Suppose she had had a living will. Would that same question
still apply?

In Florida the living will can be written or verbal (from what I've seen). She
made a verbal living will. This is apparently what many judges have believed.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."