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

On 31 Mar 2005 09:10:00 -0800, wrote:

*ploink*

*************

You need to see a vet about that deformed tongue.
There is no "pl" sound in "oink".

heh, waste enough time reading these groups and ocaisionally you'll
find a decent giggle. thanks gould

bb

"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 09:54:14 -0500, HaKrause
wrote:

Now that she's out of the picture, who do you think is the front
runner to take Buish's place in 2008?

bb

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:21:08 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"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.


If you believe that Michael's motives were dishonorable, then nothing will
change your mind.

If you believe that Michael's motives were honorable, then you wish that the end
had come in 1998 when he first asked the court.

Why did he wait until then 1998? Who knows. Maybe he had spent years hoping for
a breakthrough.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

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."

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:53:19 GMT, bb wrote:

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:54:14 -0500, HaKrause
wrote:

Now that she's out of the picture, who do you think is the front
runner to take Buish's place in 2008?

bb

No doubt, Jeb. :)
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Camilo wrote:
"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.

You have snipped the part where I talked about this being technically
correct. The law gives spouses guardianship. I was speaking to the
realities, not technicalities. Just because Ms. Schiavo didn't give
DPOA to her parents does not *strongly indicate* that she wanted her
husband to make *this* decision.

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.

I actually don't believe that. I think *most* of the politicians,
including some hardcore democrats, that tried to save Terri Schiavo did
it for moral reasons they truly believed in. They were technically
wrong, but I don't believe it was just for political purposes. *Pure*
and *Simple* grandstanding it was not.

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.

The national debate has proven that what *every* person (married or
not) knows, or should know about this issue is not always correct. And
that many people don't think about it.

I am one of those. My parents have a DPOA for me that I signed 14
years ago, long before I was married. I had forgotten about it. I
have never revoked it. I don't know if it is automatically revoked now
that I am married. I would have never thought about when I was
20something if it had not be pointed out to me that I needed one at the
time. And this case was the only reason I remembered it.

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.

Did you read any of the post I was replying to? I was agreeing that
trying to make numerous exceptions to the spousal guardianship would
muddy things and be a bad idea

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).

That all assumes the guardian is acting in the best interests of the
victim.

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 think that's a complete line of crap. The parents had no legal
standing, but to say that their sincere efforts to fight for what they
thought was the best interest of their daughter was a travesty and
insulting to her may speak to your character. Even Judge Greer
(reviled by many of the parents' supporters) treated the parents with
more respect.


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.

You polled them on that?

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.

What were the wishes of the victim? Ms. Schiavo was a practicing
catholic, was she not? So who's religious and ethical beliefs were
being considered?

I agree that Michael Schiavo had a right to make this private decision.
I have some doubt that he made the right one, though it may not be
reasonable doubt.

You look rather ignorant when you marginalize somebody's personal
religeous beliefs and then spout about what is ethical. Religeous
beliefs are directly connected to the ethics of many people.

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.

I was not just discussing this case. And I am not avoiding any issues.
It seems that, in your opinion, the real issuse are legalities,
"period." I would say you are the one hiding. Looking at his solely
as a issue to be decided by the letter of the law make you look as
feeling as a potted plant.

We really have become a pull-the-plug society. 30 years ago it wasn't
about which person could make a decision like this, it was whether or
not the decision was could be made at all. We seem to have moved to
legally assuming that nobody "would want to live like that." 30 years
ago you would want an advance medical directive making it clear that
you wanted a plug pulled on you. Now you really need one if you think
you'd want the feeding tube to stay in!

I saw a quote somewhere a few days ago from a woman identifying herself
as lesbian liberal democrat. She said something like, "The way things
are now, I would prefer the right-wing fanantics make my medical
decisions for me instead of the ACLU."

And I have nothing against the right-to-die. I have nothing against
assisted suicide for the terminally ill. A couple of years ago my
grandfather made the decision, on his own, to stop his feeding through
a tube. He was very sick and denied treatment as his quality of life
had no real chance of getting anything but worse. He was done. I
supported that decision and so did the most of the family. In the
nearly 5 weeks it took him to die at home we all helped meet is basic
needs and make him comfortable. I took my turns staying with him,
putting meds in his tube, emptying his foley bag, and changing his
diapers. I have some recent first hand experience in supporting
someone that wanted to die with dignity. That doesn't mean I will
automatically jump into the Michael Schiavo camp, or that I believe
everyone would make the same decision as my grandfather.