Replies

it's about protecting an incapacitated person from a spouse whose interests are adverse. How would we know if the decisions a spouse is making are adverse? You don't know what people discuss in the privacy of their own homes.....

Who will make the final decision..a judge?

The problem here is there is obviously no point of law that will allow questioning of both the moral character and motivation of the guardian, or, in this case, the husband-in-name-only.

When a spouse who has benefitted monetarily -- to the tune of almost $2 mil -- and who has used that money to support a second family -- declares after he has won (and spent) the $$$, that he conveniently remembers his wife stating that "she wouldn't want to live that way," there should be some cause for concern by the courts.

I agree this proposed Michigan law probably won't stand muster -- but it's really just an indication of the extreme frustration of those who have followed this case.

I'd love to see Michael Schiavo's depositions in the multiple malpractive lawsuits that netted him the cash. He and his attornies were surely singing a different tune about how poor Terry needed long-term care due to the nasty doctors, and how poor Michael was forever deprived of his conjugal rights -- two factors that very obviously no longer exist.

At the very least, I'd say the insurance companies should sue for a refund.

How would we know if the decisions a spouse is making are adverse?

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