Posted on 03/22/2005 4:03:02 PM PST by Crackingham
A Michigan lawmaker is working on legislation that would prohibit a spouse having an affair from denying food, fluids or medical treatment to a wife or husband who cannot make such decisions.
Rep. Joel Sheltrown on Tuesday said he wants to avoid a situation similar to Terri Schiavo's.
snip
Sheltrown, a Democrat from West Branch, said Michigan should strengthen its protections before a similar situation happens here.
"While people, in happier times, may trust their spouses to make future medical decisions for them, situations change," Sheltrown said in a statement. "In a situation where an incapacitated patient lives at the mercy of an adulterous spouse, it is in the patient's interest to make a presumption in favor of life."
Michigan law already prohibits the denial of life-sustaining treatment, such as food and water, unless the patient has expressed that such action be taken, said Sheltrown, who expects to introduce the bill in about three weeks.
well, in this case, the husband is living with another woman (for 10 years) by whom he has two kids. Is this not proof enough or do we have a new definition of adultery?
On second thought, it probably would be argued 'legally" - parsed to death. What IS the meaning of "is?"
At present, our youngest is 36. We have 3, all married.
So when needed to update and decided to do the Living Will and Family Trust in one swoop.
All Wills should be updated as years pass. Things change.
That's why we're going to the attorney in April. We're getting older :-)
I wanted to put this on a few threads so I'll put this here; that last paragraph is the most important.
As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals in their support of the foundation ruling - which everyone should thoroughly read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt
They found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she wouldn't want the tube to remain.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
Little ole lady laying on the floor laughing her hiney off)
Tell putting it in writing and it will make a difference to Anna Nicole Smith. She was willed her husband's money and his son went to court and won against her. And now with Congress making laws what real difference does it make?
Now that's a darned good question and one that a lot of us are asking.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
I guess Anna Nicole Smith just isn't garnering the same sympathy as Terri Schiavo.
HUH?
The lawyers and judges noted, for the record, just what that last paragraph says. MS did not HAVE to handle it the way he did. If you don't like that or believe it, take it up with the attorneys and judges, not with me.
And you are saying the Schindlers did not have adequate legal representation? Now, whose fault is that? Certainly not anyone's fault but their own. Are they or are they not able to hire any attorney they wish?
Well. No. Because she's a live :-)
Same court as Terri Schiavo. Probate court.
LOL
More poor policy driven by this Terri mess. Republicans are going to end up losing seats in congress over this. The evangelicals will really howl when the Howard Dean clones replace the Pubbies who were stampeded into voting Sunday night. Serves them right.
I don't get it. Why do they partake in all the other sins, but divorce is out.
And I'm not one that believes in most situations for divorce unless it's scriptural.
Blah, blah, blah.
Just one problem - Why should a court bother to enforce it?
It's probably unconstitutional because adultery is a civil right.
well, in this case, it's pretty clear:
living with another woman 10 years, two children with her
Stops all therapy after getting million+ lawsuit "to take care of her needs the rest of her life" ('course what HE meant by "rest of" and what the awarding judge thought may have been different)
forbidding her to be fed by mouth
warehousing her in a hospice facility - (legally for the terminally ill, expected to pass on within 6 month) - not for those NOT terminally ill - and Terri wasn't - may be so any minute
Only "remembers" she once said she didn't want to be kept alive under such cricumstances - but only remembers several years AFTER the 'accident' and after collecting lawsuits.
Many disturbing reports signifying possible blame in her condition and affidavits from nurses that testify to his wanting her dead and possibly even injecting her with injurious substances (is a nurse and has access)
Oh well, no problem here - no "evidence" that he isn't a loving and devoted spouse...let's not forget, as I've heard several dimocraps say - "the sanctity of marriage" (with a straight face even)move along
HuH?
did you leave something out or have a typo?
(hard to believe this is an actual question...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.