Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: mhking

The system worked the way it was supposed to work. As the law stands now, Michael has the power to determine what happens to her. I don't agree with it, but it's the law.

What I fail to understand, however, is why Michael is so intent on letting her die. It seems very selfish on his part. If so many people want to keep her alive, why not? What's it hurting him? He doesn't have to do anything for or with her. He can stipulate that--just say okay, she can live, but don't expect me to have anything to do with her from here on out. Her family would respect that, I believe. I believe he just doesn't want to bear the guilt of having her live, yet ignoring her. Much easier to get her out of the way -- no guilt anymore.


92 posted on 03/25/2005 6:01:32 AM PST by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: randita

JEb expressed the same bewilderment you are. It's all very strange, sick, and sad.

I hope people don't give up on "Terri's fight" when she passes. I hope people turn this inot a nationwide, state by state effort, to chnage laws in this regard.

I hope there are 50 Terri's laws. I hope that Michael Schiavo has to read int he paper each morning how this state or that state has adopted a Terri's law. I want to see her honored by having her fight continue for the right to life of all humans--unborn, disabled, etc. We have have lost the fight for her, but her battle is truly not lost, at least to me.


99 posted on 03/25/2005 6:04:40 AM PST by RightMike
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

To: randita
The system worked the way it was supposed to work. As the law stands now, Michael has the power to determine what happens to her. I don't agree with it, but it's the law
Agreed. We'll never have a perfect system. Obviously, some tweaking needs to be done.

What I fail to understand, however, is why Michael is so intent on letting her die....
I wonder the same. "Why?" about Michael, "why?" about some of the things Terri's parents have done...Why? Why? Why?

105 posted on 03/25/2005 6:06:22 AM PST by Clara Lou (Hillary Clinton: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

To: randita
As the law stands now, Michael has the power to determine what happens to her.

Negative. You arehowever, in the vast majority of people who gets this point wrong, and it sure is understandable, given the incessant repetition of the error in the media and elsewhere.

The court considered Michael's testimony, and Scot, Michael's brother, and Soctt's wife, and Teri's blood family, and at least one of Terri's friends. The court deliberated on these pieces of testimonial evidence, and decreed that clear and convincing evidence exists to support the conclusion that Terri would choose to die, if she could. Michael's only power after that determination (not only a power, but a legal duty), is to carry out Terri's wish.

I believe, to the standard of clear and convincing evidence, that the trial court got this fact worng, and that Terri would not wish to have food and water withheld as the causative agent of her demise. Not while he family is still alive and loves her. But hey, I'm just an observer to this mockery of carrying out the patient's wishes.

207 posted on 03/25/2005 6:45:03 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson