"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 23:09:50 -0500, "P. Fritz"
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.
If that was the case, then I have no problem with that.....that is not
how
it was portrayed.
Both parties...the parents and the spouse acted reprehensiblely
throughout.
I have a real problem with the notion that either the spouse or the
parents can act on the behalf of one that is incapacitated....it implies
"ownership"
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. If I had a 7 year old,
sick, and
hospitalized, I would want to be doing *all* the acting on her behalf.
Under
Florida law, if the sick person can't make decisions, the spouse is
deemed the
one to do so. Of course, the 7 year old wouldn't have a spouse or adult
children, so the parents are next.
A seven year old is different than an adult.
Being a spuse does not automatically make one act in the best interest of
an incapacitated person, especially when insurance money and lawsuit money
is involved.
I understand what the Fla. law is, I just don't agree that it is 'good'
law.
--
John H
"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."
|