Posted on 04/07/2005 2:59:57 AM PDT by schmelvin
Very true. Since Terri Schiavo was NOT terminal, and did NOT leave anything in writing stating that she wanted to die a cruel death by dehydration, I take it that you were on the side of life for Terri. Is that correct?
My friend, a ping to post #190. This is how conversations start to deteriorate.
I secons your comments Ohioan, do you think I should tell her about my spelling issues now or let her figure it our for ehrslef?
LOL! I hope that our spelling errors will not condemn us again! ;-)
So what time of day is it there for you, 11:30 pm or 12:30 am?
I didn't take a side in her case, I ~mostly~ sat out of the discussion of it. I couldn't sort through all the allegations to find the truth, and when I asked questions, I got flamed.
But when I spoke with my husband, we each decided we didn't want to live like she lived for 15 years. And we don't have anything in writing, yet, either.
I do not understand your comment about post #190. What is wrong with #190?
I think we should make a law that says, Legal Guardians can't inherit from the estates. Then let's see who steps up to be legal guardians. 9 times out of 10 to me I think the people kill off their family for the money. They worry about the healthcare expense so in order to preserve their inheritance they kill them off.
In Mae's case her grand daughter is a teacher. A teacher in Alabama. I'm not form that part of the country but I have not heard that Alabama teachers are paid a heck of a high salary. It's almost always about the money.
I rpedict soon we will see Michael Schiavo move into a nicer bigger house. And we will all be wondering how much life insurance he had on Terri.
Yup follow the money...
It's 12:30 am, jsut past midnight.
So for YOU, if your husband was exactly like Terri Schindler, you would have no problem starving and dehydrating him to death? From what you know.
You know, I actually understand the fear of bad behavior by beneficiaries, because I've seen them act badly. Not bad enough to kill, but bad enough to argue over dishes they'll never use. But I think most families would be apalled at the suggestion that they do not care about the deceased, and would not trade all inheritance for more time with their lost one. I know I'd trade it all for my mom back.
But do you want your medical decisions being made by someone ~not~ close to you? A hired gun or attorney instead of your family?
Thought I was close! You gettin' sleepy yet?
It's not fiction at all. Stop and think for a moment...have you read what I have written? My focus is on the rights of the person...that individual. In this case, it appeared that they were being denied--that her wishes, as stated in the document, were not being honored.
If you've read my posts, you should know that I am a conservative and put that individual's rights as supreme.
So of course I would have the impulse to fight for her!
Or can you not understand that...do you actually believe the "death FReeper" characatures that have been created, without thinking?
Denying the rights of the disabled is far more common than most of us even thought, and we are more aware than most.
Hmmm I don't know. I see a heck of a lot of merit in having someone who has no finacial interests in making the decisions. Actually I think a talk with your family lawyer, video taped in orer to refresh his memory, would be better than any one else. I think more often than not it IS about the money. So yeah I guess I am saying I do prefer a professional 3rd party.
You've got mail! :)
There is an important distinction to be made between brain injury patients who are otherwise healthy in body, and those suffering from terminal disease.
Terri was NOT suffering from a terminal illness, so why don't you point out the distinctions that you mentioned.
I'm replying to mysel :)
See look what happened to Terri, her hsuband hooked up with other women but remained her husband under the law. He had a conflict of interest and I don't think should have been allowed to be her legal guardian.
I love my husband and he loves me, however I also know my husband needs a woman. he would not be able to handle the lonliness, he just wouldn't. I don't think my husband would make it 15 years without hooking up with somebody else. I'm saying I think I could be terri. I know he loves me 100% now but 15 years later, when he is hooked up with a different woman? Hey people change.
To me best bet is the family lawyer who doesn't probate the will, removes finacial incentive for s/he also.
If you've read my posts,
I hadn't until last night. There are a LOT of people on FR.
No problem with it? I'd have lots of problems with it. I'd be heartbroken to have to face any of that, and it would not be a decision that came easy or fast. But If there were no hope of recovery and the choice was years of him not being able to communicate or move, I'd seek to end that, and he would for me, because that is what we've stated we want. And I'd hope we wouldn't end up on TV, being dissected and passed around as grist for the mill.
As we have seen earlier in this thread, someone that did have a living will CHANGED THEIR MIND and WANTED TO EAT, but they were denied food.
What would you do if your husband said I change my mind, I want food. Would you let him have food and water or would you tell him he didn't know what he really wanted and besides he already made out that living will and it's too late, he's not getting any food?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.