[Legerdemain]

been over that.....her husband is her legal guardian.......oh, that's right...you must like the nanny state, the state knows better than her husband...

still, no horse in the race....

[nickcarraway]

Sorry if you don't like Florida, why don't you try to change it, if you don't like it. Florida law clearly states that a guardian shouldn't have a conflict of interest. Having a new common law wife and children with her is about as big a conflict of interest as possible. No, I don't like the nanny state. And when the state can starve someone without due process, that's well down the nanny state road.

My question to you is: would you want your ex-spouse to decide if you can live or die?

[nickcarraway]

still, no horse in the race....

I think we all have a horse in this race. Giving judges absolute imperial authority over life, death, and all our rights is scary.

[Deep_6]

Haha.... You're preaching to an empty church. These
people simply do not have a clue.

I believe they're the same crew that were inflamed when
the separation of power was trampled during the
Elian Gonzalas debacle. Now of course, the saddle's
on the other horse.

This thread is still going, care to join?
Husband in Right to Die Case Moves to Block Parents in New Trial  ^

 

[theKing]

Being a legal guardian means exactly dick if you are trying to kill the person you have legal guardianship over. Just as no parent has a right to beat their child to death, which is similar what is going on in this case. Furthermore Terri's law was necessary to protect Terri from someone who wished to murder her, and as such it was the duty of the Flordia Legislature and Geb Bush to draft and sign that law, since protecting people from other people who want to kill them is really the only purpose of a state to begin with.

While Terri's parents are in fact not being sued, they do have a dog in this race. They her perents, and insomuch as they are not trying to kill Terri are really the ones looking after her best interests.

[kenth]

...and the wife didn't have an advanced directive, so the state took her rights away and gave her husband the right to kill her.

Just awful when the nanny state interferes with a good wife killin'.

[Coral Snake]

The ONLY reason we have a state in the first place is to protect LIFE, liberty and property. If they didn't intend to protect these things the founders would probably given us the near anarchy that the Objectivist Libertarians crave.

[Irene Adler]

"....her husband is her legal guardian......."

A helpless person has a right to a legal guardian who is not under the influence of obvious conflicts of interest, both legal and financial.

[Xenalyte]

been over that.....her husband is her legal guardian.......oh, that's right...you must like the nanny state, the state knows better than her husband...

If the husband is promulgating her "right to die" based on a statement she allegedly made to him that's in direct contradiction of statements she is known to have made to others, and if furthermore he and his mistress stand to benefit financially from her death, then yes, the state does know better.

Let us know when you're ready to kill your wife for the insurance money, okay?