"Camilo" wrote in message
...

"Curtis CCR" wrote in message
ups.com...


In reality, her not taking the steps did not strongly indicate
anything. Again, most people her age (at the time of the incident) have
not thought about living wills, durable power of attorney, or advance
medical directives. In the absence of all that, the spouse generally
makes the decisions by default under the law. We just have to assume
that spouses will act, to the best of their ability, in the best
interest of the patient.

The strongest indication that Terri could have given as to what she
wanted would have been formally assigning DPOA to her husband.

And the strongest evidence that her husband could have given was announcing
her desire immediately, not years later when he was impregnating someone
else.


Curtis, the bottom line is that most, if not all states have spouses as
guardians. This is the law and is well established and well accepted, by
state and federal courts and with the exception of the politics played
recently by Gov and Pres. Bush, federal and state administrations. It is
an
intensely personal and difficult decision and someone has to be
responsible.
That person is the guardian, and the guardian is the spouce, period.

The congress and president getting involved in a personal issue governed
by
state law is pure and simple GRANDSTANDING. They should be ashamed of
themselves.

Every married person knows, or should know that. In addition, many
(most?)
religious pronouncements about marriage indicate strongly that the new
married relationship takes precedence over old child/parent relationships.

I agree. It gets muddy. In the Schaivo case, I think the classy and
moral thing to to have happened would have been for the spouse to turn
Terri's care over to her parents. He had no legal obliagtion to do
that, but I think the circumstances in this case would have made it the
right thing to do.

It is not muddy in any way. The spouse is the legal guardian period.
Well
established in state and federal law, and in religions.

Only if they are acting in their best interest.


It is an intensely personal and difficult decision, period. The only
persons OPINION that matters is the victim's. The only person, legally
and
ethically, in a position to judge that is the guardian. PERIOD. There is
no question or muddiness.

The classy thing to do is for the guardian to make his/her BEST JUDGEMENT
about the wishes of the victim The EASY and WEAK thing to do is to
relinquish this responsibility under pressure from a non-guardian if that
non-guardian's opinion is different from what the victem's wishes are (as
determined by the GUARDIAN). It is not CLASSY or RIGHT to "err on the
side
of life" if the guardian's best judgement is that the victem's wish would
be
to die. LETTING THE PERSON DIE IS THE CLASSY AND RIGHT THING TO DO. What
the parents have been doing is a travesty and an insult to Ms Shaivo.

I can't think of a single adult sibling or good friend of mine - literally
dozens or hundreds of people- that would rather that their parents' make
this decision for them rather than their spouse or adult children.

Personal ancedotes do not make a valid arguement.

This is
just bizarre thinking to me, that a parent knows their ADULT, MARRIED
child
better than that persons' spouse.

It is bizarre that you cannot 'think' of one situation where they might.


This is a irrelevant issue- made up by those who feel their personal
religious or ethical beliefs are more important than the wishes of the
victim.

No, it is not.

There is no basis in law or ethics, for putting parents ahead of
spouses in making decisions for adult, married individuals. period.

You are wrong.......the basis is that the spouse was not acting in the best
interest of her.




That could easily be turned 180 degrees. What about people in bad
marriages? Until now, would someone in a bad marriage situation think
about the fact the person they may hate can make life or death
decisions?

How about married couples that have separated? Not divorced, but might
be headed to divorce. If they are still married, who should be making
right-to-die decisions for someone that is still legally married, but
has left their spouse?

Every situation has nuances,

changing you mind already?....in the same post?

but neither was the case in this situation, so
by bringing them up, you're avoiding the real issues.

There is plenty of evidence to suggest such 'nuances'......you just chose to
ignore them.



Camilo