"Calif Bill" wrote in message
k.net...

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 17:58:15 -0400, "P. Fritz"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 10:21:11 -0400, "P. Fritz"

wrote:


A seven year old is different than an adult.

True, but if the adult cannot think and make decisions, someone
must
do
it for
him/her.

Which is why I think a third party should be involved unless
specifically
designated ahead of time.


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.

Again true, but the same thing could be said of a parent when
money
is
involved.

I don't think the parents should have the say either


I understand what the Fla. law is, I just don't agree that it
is
'good'
law.

I would expect those rules are pretty much the same anywhere. They
seem
reasonable, except when ulterior motives are involved. With all
the
child abuse
problems in Florida, you'd think they'd take parents out of the
picture
entirely.

I'm on the fence WRT if the right decision was made, there are a
lot
of
conflicting stories and I don't have the time or desire to really
delve
into
them......but there seems to be enough questionable motives from all
sides.

I'll buy that!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

You used to be so strong in your convictions John. Are you now trying
to
join the wishy washy types who have backbones made of rubber? We have
at
least one or two here of that character already....are you now ready to
join them and act the "who me?" character?

Why is it wishy washy to say that one does not have enough information to
make a clear decision?







I am very much against activist judges, but they got this one right.

Yes and no...........

The judges that rule on the Fla law that made the husband the decision maker
got it right WRT the Fla law.

The federaljudges that refused to review the case based on ther
congressional law got it wrong (though I believe congress had no business
passing that law)

There
was no law saying the parents had higher rights over the spouses rights.

I agree

She was vegetable status for 15 years. She was not going to recover!!
Most
people would not want to exist in her state, and maybe it is altruism, but
we have a limited amount of money and health care available. I would much
rather take the $2-4K a day that she cost the system and put it into an
expensive surgery to save a young cancer or defective heart person.
Something like 90% of a persons health care costs are used in the last 2
years of life. My mothers and ours friend Betty died a couple of years
ago
at 94. Congestive heart failure. She knew she was going to die (she was
an
RN) and the doctors knew she was going to die. The bill for the last 5
days
in the hospital was $64,000. This money could have been better used for
helping the under 60 crowd with fixable ailments.

My point has been that the decision should have been removed from both the
husband and the parents, they both had suspect motives.