"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?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:02:23 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote:


"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.

There was quite a while that the case was being litigated. I would expect that
he wouldn't pull any plugs until that was finished. Also, he spent years trying
various treatments to fix the problem.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

What are you suggesting, Paul. That as soon as she had the accident and was
in a coma that Michael started telling everyone he knows and calling up the
news-papers and telling them that her wishes were not be kept alive by
machine?

The man went through years of trying everything he could for that woman. And
it didn't work.

Also, if you want to question motive & timing...look at this site:
http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm

Seems Terri's parents had no problems & no objections to Michael being the
guardian until shortly after money was awarded.

To be clear: I'm not saying that the parents motives are suspect. I believe
they probably were doing what they thought was best. But if you're going to
play the games of guessing motive based on the time-line of a few
actions..you'ld best look at that too.

Oh, and this story about them selling their donal list doesn't help
either...


http://www.local6.com/news/4328068/detail.html

"Gary" wrote in message
...


Oh, and this story about them selling their donal list doesn't help
either...


http://www.local6.com/news/4328068/detail.html




Do you believe everything you read, especially from than news giant
local6.com?

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005 10:38:16 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


"Gary" wrote in message
...


Oh, and this story about them selling their donal list doesn't help
either...


http://www.local6.com/news/4328068/detail.html




Do you believe everything you read, especially from than news giant
local6.com?


Jim, that story has been on many news broadcasts.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

"JimH" wrote in message
...

Do you believe everything you read, especially from than news giant
local6.com?

No, I don't believe everything I read.

Do you have any evidence the story is false? Or do you believe
that casting doubt is the same as critical thinking?