To: sweetliberty
I just wonder --- if the first court specified "medical care" then how does that get switched to "legal care" later by another court? Would the malpractice lawsuit been won if that court knew Michael never intended that his wife stay alive?
145 posted on
11/05/2003 8:33:02 PM PST by
FITZ
To: FITZ
Lots of "interesting" questions are being raised, and it may ultimately be in the public interest if some of these issues are revisited and subjected to closer scrutiny. Don't know if it will happen though. I guess it will come down to who has the most to lose by taking that risk. Could get entertaining once Terri was out of danger.
148 posted on
11/05/2003 8:39:16 PM PST by
sweetliberty
("Having the right to do a thing is not at all the same thing as being right in doing it.")
To: FITZ
Would the malpractice lawsuit been won if that court knew Michael never intended that his wife stay alive? Interesting question. Conceivably, if he had stated that his wife had a poor prognosis, he still could have gotten substantial damages. If there really was malpractice, that would apply whether she lived or died imo.
He may have been playing on the sympathy of the jury in stating his devotion and intentions to care for her himself on a long-term basis, or that may truly have been his intention at the time.
151 posted on
11/05/2003 8:46:55 PM PST by
Aliska
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson