Well then take a look at this court document. Signature, date AND witness.
Thanks.
(...it is just a piece of paper with words. No signature; no date; no witness.
Well then take a look at this court document. Signature, date AND witness.)
When I saw the document when it was first posted on this thread I was sceptical about it's authenticity. Now that I see the document with signatures, dates and notary stamp, I would have to say this information is problematic for MS in that it provides more insight into his state of mind regarding the death of his wife.
These are the types of situations where I would agree that a federal judge should have the option to review and rule on. If there is suffucient evidence to overturn a state's ruling, I think it should be heard. That doesn't mean that I think states should always be overturned, but I think the cases should be heard. I hope if this bill passes it will be clear as to which types of cases can be reviewed.
Howlin and robertpaulsen have not convinced me to change my view on this particular case. I think they are sincere, I just disagess. But I do agree with them that if this bill passes there is too much potential for the Feds to step in and stop the process for those cases that are clear cut right-to-die cases. Some cases are legitimate. I'm not convinced that Terri Shiavo's is. And I also agree with others here that the way it stands now there's too much margin for less than honorable intentions by interested parties. The law needs to be tightened up. While some here firmly believe in and trust their spouses, not everyone has that luxury. I say if it is not written and properly witnessed, just having someone say you said it shouldn't be all that's required. If errors are made, I would prefer to see errors on the side of life.