Curtis, you make some good points.

I agree that Terri may not have even considered a living-will
or health proxy. And even if Terri did most young people
probably have not. ~ All I'm saying is that our *best*
indication is that she married and did not fill out a form. This
would *seem* to indicate she wanted Michael to make
these decisions. That may not be the case...but it's the best
and most recent thing there is to go on.

I also heard that Michael claimed that Terri had stated that
she would not want to be kept alive artificially. I think I heard
that friends of her agreed that that was how she thought. If that's
true, then Michael's actions are closer to her expressed wishes
than her parent's actions. But short of a legal document it's just
so much talk.


In reality, her not taking the steps did not strongly indicate anything.

Again, I agree. She probably didn't give it much or any thought. But, again
it's what we have to go on.

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.

Exactly.




... 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.


Maybe. I wouldn't have faulted him had he done this. If he felt that he
wasn't
up to the job, was too conflicted, or that the parents really did know her
wishes better - it was a decision for him to make. But I also support that
he chose to take the responsibility.

Funny, I suspect that if Michael was leaning to keeping her alive
and the parents were leaning to removing the tube AND then
Michael relinquished his guardianship to them...I have the feeling
many would think him weak & spinless for not taking his responsibility.

It's a loose-loose situation for everyone involved.
There are no easy answers here.


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?


Good point. I don't see how that changes much though. If a person
gets married we have to assume (as the law in most states does) that
they want their spouse to take over those types of decisions if they
them-selves cant'. If the person is seperated or on the way to divorce
I guess they really should file a health proxy. ~~ I don't know from
legal, but I'd agree that if someone had filed for divorce but it just
hadn't happened yet (before an accident) then maybe the courts
should be instructed to choose the guardian. (Unless a health-proxy
or living will had been written. In which case I'd have to assume the
person who was aware enough to have the will written up would be
aware enough to change it when they wanted to).


Anyway, good points made all around.

Thanks.
gary