| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Terri Schiavo has died
"HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. Afterall, they brought her into the world...and they have been given the decision as to when she left it. Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? |
The poor woman died when her brain was deprived of blood and oxygen, 15
years ago. Now her animated corpse has followed. The only positive thing to emerge from this macabre tragedy is that the interest in living wills and appointing attorneys-in-fact to make medical decisions when incapacitated has never been higher. Terri Schiavo accomplished more good for society in general after she was brain dead than many people will ever do while living. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. Afterall, they brought her into the world...and they have been given the decision as to when she left it. Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? One of the issues I saw was that of the settlement that passed down, he received 300k, and she got 700k that was administered by the court for her ongoing care. When she died, the remainder would be inherited by him..............of course, this many years later, there is not that much left. What sort of person would not allow the parents in the room as she was dying? ....as has been reported........makes you wonder. |
|
wrote in message oups.com... The poor woman died when her brain was deprived of blood and oxygen, 15 years ago. Now her animated corpse has followed. The only positive thing to emerge from this macabre tragedy is that the interest in living wills and appointing attorneys-in-fact to make medical decisions when incapacitated has never been higher. Terri Schiavo accomplished more good for society in general after she was brain dead than many people will ever do while living. And this has what to do with boating? That's right...nothing... *ploink* -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:43:35 -0500, "P.Fritz"
wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. Afterall, they brought her into the world...and they have been given the decision as to when she left it. Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? One of the issues I saw was that of the settlement that passed down, he received 300k, and she got 700k that was administered by the court for her ongoing care. When she died, the remainder would be inherited by him..............of course, this many years later, there is not that much left. What sort of person would not allow the parents in the room as she was dying? ....as has been reported........makes you wonder. According to what I heard, he asked the parents to leave about ten minutes before she died. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone with her, without the ill will of the parents permeating the room. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I completely agree. Well put, too. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. I disagree. Terri married Michael and by doing so gave him the rights of guardianship. If she wanted to marry him but didn't trust his judgement on medical issues, she could have taken the necessary legal steps (living will and/or health proxy). Since she didn't take these steps, the best, strongest indication we have is that she wanted Michael to have those rights. We certainly don't know that for sure, but it's the best and most recent indication anyone has. And there are huge problems with your suggestion of giving guardianship to the parents if they request it. At what point does the former husband loose his rights? Is it after 1 year? 5 years? If he is living with someone? If he has a steady girlfriend? If he dates? If he visits his wife less than every day? If he never visits? Also consider a situation like this: Someone dislikes their parents. They marry and by doing so give their health rights to their spouse. They get into an accident and are in a vegitative state. The parents request guardianship rights (after whatever criteria NOYB sets has been met). Should the partents get the rights? ~ It doesn't appear to be the case with Terri, but doing this could easly end up giving rights to people that are the *last* people the person would want making those decisions. There are plenty of people out there that hate their partents, that love their parents but disagree compleately with their religiouis & political views, or that just don't think they make the best medical decisions. ~ Yes, these people should make a living-will and/or health proxy. But if they don't, where do we find the right to give their guardianship to someone they took it away from ?? Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? Perhaps. But perhaps he loved her very much. Perhaps he had some talks with Teri about what she would ever want if she were in that condition. Perhaps he didn't divorce her because he still loves her. Perhaps he wanted to do everything he could to be sure her wishes were carried out. The evidence of the case leans more toward my "perhaps" than to yours. gary |
*ploink*
************* You need to see a vet about that deformed tongue. There is no "pl" sound in "oink". |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:43:35 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message link.net... "HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. Afterall, they brought her into the world...and they have been given the decision as to when she left it. Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? One of the issues I saw was that of the settlement that passed down, he received 300k, and she got 700k that was administered by the court for her ongoing care. When she died, the remainder would be inherited by him..............of course, this many years later, there is not that much left. What sort of person would not allow the parents in the room as she was dying? ....as has been reported........makes you wonder. According to what I heard, he asked the parents to leave about ten minutes before she died. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone with her, without the ill will of the parents permeating the room. ....and without witnesses as he placed a pillow over her face? |
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:22:59 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
"John H" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 11:43:35 -0500, "P.Fritz" wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message hlink.net... "HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. Afterall, they brought her into the world...and they have been given the decision as to when she left it. Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? One of the issues I saw was that of the settlement that passed down, he received 300k, and she got 700k that was administered by the court for her ongoing care. When she died, the remainder would be inherited by him..............of course, this many years later, there is not that much left. What sort of person would not allow the parents in the room as she was dying? ....as has been reported........makes you wonder. According to what I heard, he asked the parents to leave about ten minutes before she died. Perhaps he just wanted to be alone with her, without the ill will of the parents permeating the room. ...and without witnesses as he placed a pillow over her face? Most probably an attendant from the hospice was there. I doubt if a pillow was necessary. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. Anyone that says "she's at peace now" can say the same thing about anyone who was murdered. Somehow that doesn't cut it for me. |
Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I
think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for writing it. "Gary"wrote the stuff "NOYB" wrote the stuff It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I completely agree. Well put, too. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. I disagree. Terri married Michael and by doing so gave him the rights of guardianship. If she wanted to marry him but didn't trust his judgement on medical issues, she could have taken the necessary legal steps (living will and/or health proxy). Since she didn't take these steps, the best, strongest indication we have is that she wanted Michael to have those rights. We certainly don't know that for sure, but it's the best and most recent indication anyone has. And there are huge problems with your suggestion of giving guardianship to the parents if they request it. At what point does the former husband loose his rights? Is it after 1 year? 5 years? If he is living with someone? If he has a steady girlfriend? If he dates? If he visits his wife less than every day? If he never visits? Also consider a situation like this: Someone dislikes their parents. They marry and by doing so give their health rights to their spouse. They get into an accident and are in a vegitative state. The parents request guardianship rights (after whatever criteria NOYB sets has been met). Should the partents get the rights? ~ It doesn't appear to be the case with Terri, but doing this could easly end up giving rights to people that are the *last* people the person would want making those decisions. There are plenty of people out there that hate their partents, that love their parents but disagree compleately with their religiouis & political views, or that just don't think they make the best medical decisions. ~ Yes, these people should make a living-will and/or health proxy. But if they don't, where do we find the right to give their guardianship to someone they took it away from ?? Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? Perhaps. But perhaps he loved her very much. Perhaps he had some talks with Teri about what she would ever want if she were in that condition. Perhaps he didn't divorce her because he still loves her. Perhaps he wanted to do everything he could to be sure her wishes were carried out. The evidence of the case leans more toward my "perhaps" than to yours. gary |
Top posting because I encourage everyone to kill file all these off-topic
clowns. I think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable things to do of the ignorant, and stupid off-topic poster issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for writing it. *ploink* "Camilo" wrote in message ... Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for writing it. [non-boating garbage snipped] -- -Netsock "It's just about going fast...that's all..." http://home.columbus.rr.com/ckg/ |
Also Sprach HaKrause :
Rest in peace, at last. Great, can y'all stop talking about her now? Dan -- I have never seen anything fill up a vacuum so fast and still suck. -- Rob Pike, commenting on The X Window System |
my dog was murdered (by the vet), after being
hit by a truck...... |
Gary wrote: "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. But this is an issue that should not die with Terri. I completely agree. Well put, too. I strongly believe that in the absence of a living will, and when a spouse has moved on with his or her life (new girlfriend, etc), the parents ought to be given guardianship if they request it. I disagree. So do I, but I think you have some flaws in your reasoning. You may have some things "technically" correct. But I am not convinced your conclusions match reality. Terri married Michael and by doing so gave him the rights of guardianship. Generally correct. If she wanted to marry him but didn't trust his judgement on medical issues, she could have taken the necessary legal steps (living will and/or health proxy). She *could* have. But would she have thought of that? She was in her 20s when she had the heart attack that disabled her. How many 20something year olds would even know what rights they have in making decisions for their spouse, or what rights their spouse has to make decisions about them? Most 20 something year old don't think about being thrust into the situation Terri was in. Since she didn't take these steps, the best, strongest indication we have is that she wanted Michael to have those rights. We certainly don't know that for sure, but it's the best and most recent indication anyone has. 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. Based on the way most people her age deal with these issues, the lack of a DPOA, AMD, or living will is just a strong indication that she had never thought much about it. But that doesn't mean that spouses decision making authority should automatically be disputed. And there are huge problems with your suggestion of giving guardianship to the parents if they request it. At what point does the former husband loose his rights? Is it after 1 year? 5 years? If he is living with someone? If he has a steady girlfriend? If he dates? If he visits his wife less than every day? If he never visits? 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. Also consider a situation like this: Someone dislikes their parents. They marry and by doing so give their health rights to their spouse. They get into an accident and are in a vegitative state. The parents request guardianship rights (after whatever criteria NOYB sets has been met). Should the partents get the rights? ~ It doesn't appear to be the case with Terri, but doing this could easly end up giving rights to people that are the *last* people the person would want making those decisions. 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? |
"Camilo" wrote in message ... Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for writing it. Thanks for saying so. |
"Gary" wrote in message ... "Camilo" wrote in message ... Top posting because I encourage everyone to read the following by Gary - I think this is one of the most reasoned and reasonable analysis of the spouse, parent, guardian issue that I've read or heard so far. Thanks for writing it. Thanks for saying so. I am also in agreement that it was well written and it is my thoughts too. Jim Carter |
"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 |
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 |
|
"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. |
"John H" wrote in message ... 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. I don't know if his intentions where honorable, I do think they were questionalbe......as were the parents. -- 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." |
"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? |
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." |
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." |
On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 20:43:26 GMT, "Gary" wrote:
"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? This seems like a fairly unbiased account of what happened: http://www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/timeline.htm -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
Around 3/31/2005 8:25 AM, NOYB wrote:
"HaKrause" wrote in message ... Rest in peace, at last. Amen. It's sad that it took the suffering of a human being to bring this issue to the forefront. The whole thing is sad, and I doubt his suffering will be ending anytime soon. snip Why didn't Michael Schiavo divorce his wife and sever his ties to her? Perhaps he wanted the rights to the movie deal? Like I said... -- ~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat" "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats." -Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:33 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com