Well that's what I wanted to know. If it's against Florida law then where's the problem? I've been following this case here and there and don't really understand what the holdup is on the final decision. If the law says that life decisions rest with the husband, than the decision is his. Why do her parents have standing at all?
No offense taken, but if a legislature has written a law that life decisions rest with the husband, then the people (government) have granted him the authority to make this decision.
This is why I'm confused. I don't understand what all these stays will accomplish. A final decision will have to be made eventually.
Her life is not his to give as he likes. It is a gift of Gods
It doesn't say it rests with the husband per se. It rests with the guardian. Michael is Terri's legal guardian although he has fooled around on her for years, some previous to her collapse, and much more so afterwards. He's a little bit like Bill Clinton in that regard. Since 1997 he has been openly living with another woman, Jodi Centonze, who is his fiancee (while his current wife is still alive and bedridden?) and has two children with her.
Terri's family has been trying to gain guardianship of Terri because Michael has not allowed her rehab for her condition, for which a $1.2million award was given from a malpractice suit in 1992. The problem is, Judge Greer will not allow the guardianship case to move forward, and he does nothing to reprimand Michael in any way for not showing up at prviously scheduled court-recorder attended depositions.
Michael is responsible for why Terri is no longer making the progress she did soon after her collapse. Since that is against guardianship rules, why is he still her guardian? Only because of this judge. Michael is cruel beyond compare, and should be jailed for his mistreatment of his bedridden wife.
Because the law can't be as simplistic as you make it sound and extraneous circumstances must be considered. The husband should have guardianship no matter what? And forever?
What if he only remembered her saying she would want to to exercise this so-called right to die after he was awarded a hefty settlement as a result of court proceedings during which he pledged his undying love and commitment to her care?
What if he subsequently denied her promised therapy for a decade after receiving money specifically designated for such?
What if he instead spent most of the therapy money on attorneys' fees trying to convince the court that his wife really wanted to die rather than have her hands kept from curling up into her chest?
What if he caused her to spend most of her time alone in a room with no stimulation in a facility specifically designated and federally funded for the care of the terminally ill?
What if he posted a guard outside her door to limit and control the visits by her parents and family, sometimes whimsically denying them altogether?
And what if, in the meantime, he started a new family outside the relationship he so earnestly claimed he had with his disabled wife?
Should such a caring devoted man retain guardianship, or should additional parties be allowed to petition the court on Terri's behalf?
You know, I must admit, reading those facts as I just wrote them, I am astounded that we are at this place at all, that Terri's parents are still fighting for her life and their rightful place in it, after all this time, despite all that has gone on. It's truly incredible.
better be careful how you judge things - life has a way of teaching us how to "understand" by putting us in the same situation
I don't know about you, but I don't want my husband deciding if I am allowed to live or I must die. That is the kind of decision one makes about property. In Muslim countries, women are property and their male relatives routinely kill them for all kinds of "crimes." Is this what we really need here?
Do you know much about this case?