"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:21:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"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.


If you believe that Michael's motives were dishonorable, then nothing
will
change your mind.

If you believe that Michael's motives were honorable, then you wish that
the end
had come in 1998 when he first asked the court.

Why did he wait until then 1998? Who knows. Maybe he had spent years
hoping for
a breakthrough.

I don't know if his intentions where honorable, I do think they were
questionalbe......as were the parents.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"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."

"P.Fritz" wrote:

And the strongest evidence that her husband could have given was
announcing her desire immediately, not years later when he was
impregnating someone else.


Her husband does not have to do things on YOUR time-table. As I understand
it he tried for years to do everything he could to find a way for her to
recover. It also seems very possible that for a few years after that he just
didn't know what
do to. It's very easy to imagine that he was in conflict between wanting to
follow her expressed desires to not be kept alive by machines one the one
hand -- and not wanting to make that horrible decision to let her die on the
other. Then
there was a while of legal battles. The fact that this took 13 years does
not in any way mean that he did the wrong thing or that his motives are
suspect.




"P.Fritz" wrote:

The courts should have appointed a 3rd party guardian for her, but from
what I understand, the parents were outlawyerd and once the judgment was
entered, the high courts could only rule on the validity of the lower
court ruling.....not retry the facts of the case.

The husband was the legal guardian. Unless he was shown to be incompetent
(which is not the same thing as just disagreeing with You) why should his
rights be taken away? If a person signs a health proxy giving decision
making
rights to their spouse, then were in an accident, and then their parents
contested the spouses rights -- but with no indication that the spouse was
incompetent -- by what right & reason should a judge step in and assign
rights to a 3rd party?


I don't know if you are one of those "damned activist judges!" crowd, but to
me, a judge that takes rights from someone for no reason would be *way* in
the wrong. And just because the husband is not making the decision that you
would want or just because you *think* his motives are suspect is not a good
reason to take away his rights.

PS: Someone mentioned here that a 3rd party guardian had been appointed
as some point(s). Anyone know more about that?

"Gary" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote:

And the strongest evidence that her husband could have given was
announcing her desire immediately, not years later when he was
impregnating someone else.


Her husband does not have to do things on YOUR time-table.

couldn't address the point directly I see..............had he announce her
desires immediately, there would have been little question, waiting as he
did raised many.

As I understand it he tried for years to do everything he could to find a
way for her to recover. It also seems very possible that for a few years
after that he just didn't know what
do to. It's very easy to imagine that he was in conflict between wanting
to follow her expressed desires to not be kept alive by machines one the
one hand -- and not wanting to make that horrible decision to let her die
on the other. Then
there was a while of legal battles. The fact that this took 13 years does
not in any way mean that he did the wrong thing or that his motives are
suspect.

An dmy understanding is his revelations of her desires came about after the
civil suit and his new girlfriend.





"P.Fritz" wrote:

The courts should have appointed a 3rd party guardian for her, but
from what I understand, the parents were outlawyerd and once the judgment
was entered, the high courts could only rule on the validity of the lower
court ruling.....not retry the facts of the case.

The husband was the legal guardian. Unless he was shown to be incompetent
(which is not the same thing as just disagreeing with You) why should his
rights be taken away? If a person signs a health proxy giving decision
making
rights to their spouse, then were in an accident, and then their parents
contested the spouses rights -- but with no indication that the spouse was
incompetent -- by what right & reason should a judge step in and assign
rights to a 3rd party?


I don't know if you are one of those "damned activist judges!" crowd, but
to me, a judge that takes rights from someone for no reason would be *way*
in the wrong. And just because the husband is not making the decision
that you would want or just because you *think* his motives are suspect is
not a good reason to take away his rights.

PS: Someone mentioned here that a 3rd party guardian had been appointed
as some point(s). Anyone know more about that?

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.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:02:23 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...

"P.Fritz" wrote:

And the strongest evidence that her husband could have given was
announcing her desire immediately, not years later when he was
impregnating someone else.


Her husband does not have to do things on YOUR time-table.

couldn't address the point directly I see..............had he announce her
desires immediately, there would have been little question, waiting as he
did raised many.

There was quite a while that the case was being litigated. I would expect that
he wouldn't pull any plugs until that was finished. Also, he spent years trying
various treatments to fix the problem.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:43:26 GMT, "Gary" wrote:


"P.Fritz" wrote:

And the strongest evidence that her husband could have given was
announcing her desire immediately, not years later when he was
impregnating someone else.


Her husband does not have to do things on YOUR time-table. As I understand
it he tried for years to do everything he could to find a way for her to
recover. It also seems very possible that for a few years after that he just
didn't know what
do to. It's very easy to imagine that he was in conflict between wanting to
follow her expressed desires to not be kept alive by machines one the one
hand -- and not wanting to make that horrible decision to let her die on the
other. Then
there was a while of legal battles. The fact that this took 13 years does
not in any way mean that he did the wrong thing or that his motives are
suspect.




"P.Fritz" wrote:

The courts should have appointed a 3rd party guardian for her, but from
what I understand, the parents were outlawyerd and once the judgment was
entered, the high courts could only rule on the validity of the lower
court ruling.....not retry the facts of the case.

The husband was the legal guardian. Unless he was shown to be incompetent
(which is not the same thing as just disagreeing with You) why should his
rights be taken away? If a person signs a health proxy giving decision
making
rights to their spouse, then were in an accident, and then their parents
contested the spouses rights -- but with no indication that the spouse was
incompetent -- by what right & reason should a judge step in and assign
rights to a 3rd party?


I don't know if you are one of those "damned activist judges!" crowd, but to
me, a judge that takes rights from someone for no reason would be *way* in
the wrong. And just because the husband is not making the decision that you
would want or just because you *think* his motives are suspect is not a good
reason to take away his rights.

PS: Someone mentioned here that a 3rd party guardian had been appointed
as some point(s). Anyone know more about that?


This seems like a fairly unbiased account of what happened:

http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Around 3/31/2005 8:25 AM, NOYB wrote:

"HaKrause" wrote in message
...

Rest in peace, at last.

Amen.


It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to
the forefront.

The whole thing is sad, and I doubt his suffering will be ending anytime
soon.

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

Like I said...

--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

What are you suggesting, Paul. That as soon as she had the accident and was
in a coma that Michael started telling everyone he knows and calling up the
news-papers and telling them that her wishes were not be kept alive by
machine?

The man went through years of trying everything he could for that woman. And
it didn't work.

Also, if you want to question motive & timing...look at this site:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Seems Terri's parents had no problems & no objections to Michael being the
guardian until shortly after money was awarded.

To be clear: I'm not saying that the parents motives are suspect. I believe
they probably were doing what they thought was best. But if you're going to
play the games of guessing motive based on the time-line of a few
actions..you'ld best look at that too.

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


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