"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.

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.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.


Well he did have to wait for his $300,000 check to clear. ;-)

"NOYB" wrote in message
k.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.

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 16:44:15 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.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.
--
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."

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."

"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?