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.