"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue
to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri.

I completely agree. Well put, too.


I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse
has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought
to be given guardianship if they request it.

I disagree. Terri married Michael and by doing so gave him the rights of
guardianship. If she wanted to marry him but didn't trust his judgement on
medical issues, she could have taken the necessary legal steps
(living will and/or health proxy).
Since she didn't take these steps, the best, strongest indication we have is
that she wanted Michael to have those rights. We certainly don't know
that for sure, but it's the best and most recent indication anyone has.

And there are huge problems with your suggestion of giving guardianship
to the parents if they request it. At what point does the former husband
loose his rights? Is it after 1 year? 5 years? If he is living with
someone?
If he has a steady girlfriend? If he dates? If he visits his wife less
than
every day? If he never visits?

Also consider a situation like this: Someone dislikes their parents. They
marry and by doing so give their health rights to their spouse. They get
into an accident and are in a vegitative state. The parents request
guardianship rights (after whatever criteria NOYB sets has been met).
Should the partents get the rights? ~ It doesn't appear to be the case
with Terri, but doing this could easly end up giving rights to people that
are the *last* people the person would want making those decisions.

There are plenty of people out there that hate their partents, that love
their parents but disagree compleately with their religiouis & political
views, or that just don't think they make the best medical decisions. ~
Yes,
these people should make a living-will and/or health proxy. But if they
don't,
where do we find the right to give their guardianship to someone
they took it away from ??



Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her?
Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal?


Perhaps.

But perhaps he loved her very much. Perhaps he had some talks with
Teri about what she would ever want if she were in that condition. Perhaps
he
didn't divorce her because he still loves her. Perhaps he wanted to do
everything
he could to be sure her wishes were carried out.

The evidence of the case leans more toward my "perhaps" than to yours.

gary

Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I
think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the
spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for
writing it.

"Gary"wrote the stuff

"NOYB" wrote the stuff

It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue
to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri.

I completely agree. Well put, too.


I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a
spouse
has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents
ought
to be given guardianship if they request it.

I disagree. Terri married Michael and by doing so gave him the rights of
guardianship. If she wanted to marry him but didn't trust his judgement on
medical issues, she could have taken the necessary legal steps
(living will and/or health proxy).
Since she didn't take these steps, the best, strongest indication we have
is
that she wanted Michael to have those rights. We certainly don't know
that for sure, but it's the best and most recent indication anyone has.

And there are huge problems with your suggestion of giving guardianship
to the parents if they request it. At what point does the former husband
loose his rights? Is it after 1 year? 5 years? If he is living with
someone?
If he has a steady girlfriend? If he dates? If he visits his wife less
than
every day? If he never visits?

Also consider a situation like this: Someone dislikes their parents. They
marry and by doing so give their health rights to their spouse. They get
into an accident and are in a vegitative state. The parents request
guardianship rights (after whatever criteria NOYB sets has been met).
Should the partents get the rights? ~ It doesn't appear to be the case
with Terri, but doing this could easly end up giving rights to people that
are the *last* people the person would want making those decisions.

There are plenty of people out there that hate their partents, that love
their parents but disagree compleately with their religiouis & political
views, or that just don't think they make the best medical decisions. ~
Yes,
these people should make a living-will and/or health proxy. But if they
don't,
where do we find the right to give their guardianship to someone
they took it away from ??



Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her?
Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal?


Perhaps.

But perhaps he loved her very much. Perhaps he had some talks with
Teri about what she would ever want if she were in that condition. Perhaps
he
didn't divorce her because he still loves her. Perhaps he wanted to do
everything
he could to be sure her wishes were carried out.

The evidence of the case leans more toward my "perhaps" than to yours.

gary

Top posting because I encourage everyone to kill file all these off-topic
clowns. I
think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable things to do of the
ignorant, and stupid off-topic poster issue that I've read or heard so far.
Thanks for
writing it.

*ploink*

"Camilo" wrote in message
...
Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I
think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the
spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for
writing it.

[non-boating garbage snipped]


--
-Netsock

"It's just about going fast...that's all..."
http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/

"Camilo" wrote in message
...
Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I
think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the
spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for
writing it.


Thanks for saying so.

"Gary" wrote in message
...

"Camilo" wrote in message
...
Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary -
I
think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the
spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks
for
writing it.

Thanks for saying so.

I am also in agreement that it was well written and it is my thoughts too.

Jim Carter

Gary wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this
issue
to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with
Terri.

I completely agree. Well put, too.

I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a
spouse
has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the
parents ought
to be given guardianship if they request it.

I disagree.

So do I, but I think you have some flaws in your reasoning. You may
have some things "technically" correct. But I am not convinced your
conclusions match reality.

Terri married Michael and by doing so gave him the rights of
guardianship.

Generally correct.

If she wanted to marry him but didn't trust his judgement on
medical issues, she could have taken the necessary legal steps
(living will and/or health proxy).

She *could* have. But would she have thought of that? She was in her
20s when she had the heart attack that disabled her. How many
20something year olds would even know what rights they have in making
decisions for their spouse, or what rights their spouse has to make
decisions about them? Most 20 something year old don't think about
being thrust into the situation Terri was in.

Since she didn't take these steps, the best, strongest indication we
have is
that she wanted Michael to have those rights. We certainly don't
know
that for sure, but it's the best and most recent indication anyone
has.

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.

Based on the way most people her age deal with these issues, the lack
of a DPOA, AMD, or living will is just a strong indication that she had
never thought much about it. But that doesn't mean that spouses
decision making authority should automatically be disputed.

And there are huge problems with your suggestion of giving
guardianship
to the parents if they request it. At what point does the former
husband
loose his rights? Is it after 1 year? 5 years? If he is living with

someone?
If he has a steady girlfriend? If he dates? If he visits his wife
less
than
every day? If he never visits?

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.

Also consider a situation like this: Someone dislikes their parents.
They
marry and by doing so give their health rights to their spouse. They
get
into an accident and are in a vegitative state. The parents request
guardianship rights (after whatever criteria NOYB sets has been met).
Should the partents get the rights? ~ It doesn't appear to be the
case
with Terri, but doing this could easly end up giving rights to people
that
are the *last* people the person would want making those decisions.

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?

"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.

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.

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

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

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

Camilo

"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

"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.

Camilo wrote:
"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.

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.

You have snipped the part where I talked about this being technically
correct. The law gives spouses guardianship. I was speaking to the
realities, not technicalities. Just because Ms. Schiavo didn't give
DPOA to her parents does not *strongly indicate* that she wanted her
husband to make *this* decision.

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.

I actually don't believe that. I think *most* of the politicians,
including some hardcore democrats, that tried to save Terri Schiavo did
it for moral reasons they truly believed in. They were technically
wrong, but I don't believe it was just for political purposes. *Pure*
and *Simple* grandstanding it was not.

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.

The national debate has proven that what *every* person (married or
not) knows, or should know about this issue is not always correct. And
that many people don't think about it.

I am one of those. My parents have a DPOA for me that I signed 14
years ago, long before I was married. I had forgotten about it. I
have never revoked it. I don't know if it is automatically revoked now
that I am married. I would have never thought about when I was
20something if it had not be pointed out to me that I needed one at the
time. And this case was the only reason I remembered it.

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.

Did you read any of the post I was replying to? I was agreeing that
trying to make numerous exceptions to the spousal guardianship would
muddy things and be a bad idea

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).

That all assumes the guardian is acting in the best interests of the
victim.

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 think that's a complete line of crap. The parents had no legal
standing, but to say that their sincere efforts to fight for what they
thought was the best interest of their daughter was a travesty and
insulting to her may speak to your character. Even Judge Greer
(reviled by many of the parents' supporters) treated the parents with
more respect.


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

You polled them on that?

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

What were the wishes of the victim? Ms. Schiavo was a practicing
catholic, was she not? So who's religious and ethical beliefs were
being considered?

I agree that Michael Schiavo had a right to make this private decision.
I have some doubt that he made the right one, though it may not be
reasonable doubt.

You look rather ignorant when you marginalize somebody's personal
religeous beliefs and then spout about what is ethical. Religeous
beliefs are directly connected to the ethics of many people.

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

I was not just discussing this case. And I am not avoiding any issues.
It seems that, in your opinion, the real issuse are legalities,
"period." I would say you are the one hiding. Looking at his solely
as a issue to be decided by the letter of the law make you look as
feeling as a potted plant.

We really have become a pull-the-plug society. 30 years ago it wasn't
about which person could make a decision like this, it was whether or
not the decision was could be made at all. We seem to have moved to
legally assuming that nobody "would want to live like that." 30 years
ago you would want an advance medical directive making it clear that
you wanted a plug pulled on you. Now you really need one if you think
you'd want the feeding tube to stay in!

I saw a quote somewhere a few days ago from a woman identifying herself
as lesbian liberal democrat. She said something like, "The way things
are now, I would prefer the right-wing fanantics make my medical
decisions for me instead of the ACLU."

And I have nothing against the right-to-die. I have nothing against
assisted suicide for the terminally ill. A couple of years ago my
grandfather made the decision, on his own, to stop his feeding through
a tube. He was very sick and denied treatment as his quality of life
had no real chance of getting anything but worse. He was done. I
supported that decision and so did the most of the family. In the
nearly 5 weeks it took him to die at home we all helped meet is basic
needs and make him comfortable. I took my turns staying with him,
putting meds in his tube, emptying his foley bag, and changing his
diapers. I have some recent first hand experience in supporting
someone that wanted to die with dignity. That doesn't mean I will
automatically jump into the Michael Schiavo camp, or that I believe
everyone would make the same decision as my grandfather.