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?