"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."

"John H" wrote in message
...
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.

My point is that if a guardian was appointed, Michael should not have
been able to make any decisions.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:13:03 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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.

My point is that if a guardian was appointed, Michael should not have
been able to make any decisions.

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."


Maybe it *was* the guardians making the decisions, but they happened to concur
with Michael's wishes.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 18:13:03 -0500, "P. Fritz"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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.

My point is that if a guardian was appointed, Michael should not have
been able to make any decisions.


The second guardian's report can be seen at:


http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo...20report .pdf


--
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?