Replies

"Uh, the word is GUARDIAN, not 'custodian'. A custodian takes care of PROPERTY. A guardian is a person assigned by a court to take care of another PERSON. "

Please don't throw tit for tat in my wording if it says guardian then guardian it is. But you do acknowledge that law at least in some way.

"Which is lawful, to do good or to do evil; to save life or to kill?"

That is not the discussion and would be very flimsy in court. The law is simple it states that ones wishes to not continue life saving measures or continual vegetative non-cognitive state then the GUARDIAN, as appointed by the courts has the decision to end such procedures. This is not a good evil argument. It is not killing as you espouse. No matter what your PERSONAL feeling sin this maater that is not the discussion.

"What aspect of "inalienable" as descriptive of the Right to Life don't you understand? "

What is it that you do not understand when a wife who has told her husband that she did not wish to live a vegetable do you not understand? Were you privvy to the conversations in their bedrooms? Didn't think so. Before popping off about inalienable rights start thinking about ones personal rights and wishes.

10 years in courts
Decision was made.
LAW was on the books
he is guardian he made a decision.
If you cannot respect ones wishes/rights then what good is your little roll up constitution?

Thank you for your response.

That is not the discussion and would be very flimsy in court. The law is simple it states that ones wishes to not continue life saving measures or continual vegetative non-cognitive state then the GUARDIAN, as appointed by the courts has the decision to end such procedures. This is not a good evil argument.

Your assertion is refuted by the thrust of the very moral, and the very accurate legal/historical statement in the article:

"Courts have labored mightily in the vineyards of greedy relatives, diabolical murderers and petty friends for over 500 years to develop will and probate laws that avoid such he said/she said contentions when there are no written documents from decedents who can no longer speak.

Written proof, not assertions by those who have financial conflicts of interest, determines intent. This willy-nilly legal framework for taking the life of one who has not reduced such a desire to writing mocks the law's demands for caution and morality's edicts on the sanctity of human life.

As well as the lack of written proof of her intentions, there is other statutory, constitutional and case law that is operative also, as has been delineated on many of these threads. The law is to be interpreted as a whole, not just isolated parts of it. That's why I asked you the question of the overall purpose of law in the first place. You did not answer that question.

And yes, this case is a case of court-sanctioned attempted killing of an innocent person. She is a disabled person who was not terminally ill, or dying, or anything of the kind, at least until they removed her nutrition and hydration in their attempt to kill her. I don't know how else to say this, but your use of loaded terms such as "vegetative" and "non-congnitive" indicates that the vast amount of factual information about this adulterous man and his intentions, the conduct of his guardianship, and the actual condition of his unfortunate wife that resulted from his neglect and abuse that has appeared on these threads has still not made much of an impression upon your mind, just as it apparently made no impression on a corrupt and/or incompentent judge and/or judicial system.

Cordially,

The law you cite has only been on the books for 10 years. Terri's condition precedes the law. You state ..."The law itself speaks to the condition... The law is simple it states that ones wishes to not continue life saving measures or continual vegetative non-cognitive state then the GUARDIAN, as appointed by the courts has the decision to end such procedures. This is not a good evil argument. It is not killing as you espouse. No matter what your PERSONAL feeling sin this maater that is not the discussion. .."
It has nothing to do with MY personal feelings. Although it does concern my personal experience.

You assume the husband is truthful and had no part in bringing about the "condition". If Terri dies by court order, and some day future, her husband admits he lied, Terri is still dead.
I believe the husband may or may not be lying. And the condition existed before the law.
So, your solution is death, and my solution is life.

Believe this. Laws come and go,good laws and bad, but right is ALWAYS right, and wrong is ALways wrong. Life is fleeting, death is irreversible.