| Typical board conversation with supporter of Michael Schiavo: Me: It's against Florida Statute 825.102 to withhold food and fluids from someone who is incapacitated. Them: But it's what Terri WANTED. Michael said so. Me: His hearsay testimony of Terri's alleged wish to die was inadmissible under Florida Statute 90.602. Them: But he's her husband. He's the one who should speak for her. Me: He's not really her husband anymore. He has a mate and two children with her. Under Florida law, he's living in open adultery and has abandoned his marriage. Them: Well, he's only trying to do what's in Terri's best interest. Me: He's also in violation of Florida Statute 744.3215 (which defines the role of the guardian and the rights of an incapacitated ward) by not providing necessary care, filing annual guardianship plans or prudently managing Terri's estate/property. In the eyes of the law, he's no longer qualified to act as her guardian. Them: Well, she should still be allowed to die because the court said she should. Me: The court has not upheld the guardianship laws of Florida nor has it properly applied the Florida State that defines 'persistent vegetative state' in this case. Also, the court did not review affidavits of doctors who said Terri had been misdiagnosed, so causing her to die by dehydration and starvation is an inappropriate if not utterly illegal ruling. Them: Well, I wouldn't want to live that way. There's no quality of life for her. Me: She responds very purposefully to her family and follows directives, so she's obviously aware. Do you think we should allow guardians to end the lives of aware, cognizant and functional people just because they have a brain injury or aren't able to feed themselves? Them: YOU'RE JUST DEMONIZING MICHAEL!!! |
Typical exchange. But have you been called a dyke yet? They're getting desparate.