On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 19:39:28 -0500, "JimH" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:13:03 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 22:34:45 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:
"John H" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:44:15 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...
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.
Bingo! Why didn't he attempt to grant Terri's supposed wishes
14
years
earlier? His timing speaks volumes about the validity of his
claim.
The courts should have appointed a 3rd party guardian for her,
but
from
what I understand, the parents were outlawyerd and once the
judgement
was
entered, the high courts could only rule on the validity of the
lower
court
ruling.....not retry the facts of the case.
Guardians were appointed in 1994 and again in 1998 by the court.
Although the
second one stated that Michael Schiavo's decision-making may be
influenced by
the potential to inherit the remainder of Terri Schiavo's estate,
he
agreed that
Terry Schiavo was in a persistent vegetative state.
Then why was it not the guardian making the decisions?
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
They had no problems with the decisions made by Michael, other than as
mentioned
above.
My point is that if a guardian was appointed, Michael should not have
been able to make any decisions.
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
Maybe it *was* the guardians making the decisions, but they happened to
concur
with Michael's wishes.
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
And maybe not.
True, but the judge didn't take the guardianship away from Michael.
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
|