"Gary" wrote in message
...


Oh, and this story about them selling their donal list doesn't help
either...


http://www.local6.com/news/4328068/detail.html




Do you believe everything you read, especially from than news giant
local6.com?

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:38:16 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...


Oh, and this story about them selling their donal list doesn't help
either...


http://www.local6.com/news/4328068/detail.html




Do you believe everything you read, especially from than news giant
local6.com?


Jim, that story has been on many news broadcasts.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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."

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."

"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.

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.


The second guardian's report can be seen at:


http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo...20report .pdf


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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."

"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"

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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."

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.

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 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.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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.



--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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."

"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?

On Sun, 3 Apr 2005 19:43:22 -0400, "JimH" wrote:


"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?


My convictions haven't changed. I have quite strong feelings about the Schiavo
thing, but they may not agree with everyone else's.

I feel very strongly that we made some tremendous errors in the way we handled
the Iraq war.

I had my doubts about the sufficiency of the evidence for attacking Iraq.

Most of the time I disagree with the ridiculousness of the *arguments* presented
by some of those on the left, not necessarily the point they are making.

Perhaps if you'll be a little more explicit, I could provide a more explanatory
answer.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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?

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

"JimH" wrote in message
...

Do you believe everything you read, especially from than news giant
local6.com?

No, I don't believe everything I read.

Do you have any evidence the story is false? Or do you believe
that casting doubt is the same as critical thinking?

"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.

"P.Fritz" wrote in message
...

"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.




Why? Just because there is a suspect motive, why change the rules? There
is not proof that he assulted her. Maybe it was the remains of the lawsuit
settlement. Still not a reason. If they had kids, they should of pulled
the tube even earlier, so the family does not have to live in poverty.
Since she collapsed from her own acts, she should of not even got the
judgement. But just because someone is going to profit is not a reason to
change the laws. If your wife was in PVS and you had money and after the
insurance ran out, you and your children are going to visit bankrupsy. You
have a profit motive to pull the plug. And even a million dollars of
insurance is not going to pay for 15 years of care. So the court will not
let you pull the plug because you have a profit motive? Makes as much sense
as your argument that Mr. Shiavao wanted the remains of the judgement.
Maybe the original suit, should have awarded an amount of money maximum for
her care only. Then no profit motive for the family, but a profit motive
for the hospital.