Yes, now that the truth is coming out, people are changing their opinions.
Here's an incredible thing. Last night I was watching The McLaughlin Group & Lawrence (Nutcase) O'Donnell was on. He was completely against Terri's husband taking her life like he did & was in favor of the law changing so that the spouse is not automatically the guardian in such cases. I never thought I would say it, but I agreed with him completely!
The MSM certainly has to take some responsibility for an innocent woman's cold-blooded murder. Yes, I believe there is blood on their hands too.
My guess is that he is distracting from the core moral and issues. As it is, the law does NOT give the spouse guardianship. If it did, then (convicted) abusive husbands would have control over their incapacitated wive's medical care.
I think that causing a (legally incorrect) focus on guardianship is deliberate misdirection. Just like focusing on PVS was, two weeks ago.
My guess is that he is distracting from the core moral and issues. As it is, the law does NOT give the spouse guardianship. If it did, then (convicted) abusive husbands would have control over their incapacitated wive's medical care.
I think that causing a (legally incorrect) focus on guardianship is deliberate misdirection. Just like focusing on PVS was, two weeks ago.
Geeze. A few glaring omissions of words on my part. "core mroal and legal issues," at the start, and "the law does not automatically give guardianship to the spouse" later on. Of course the spouse can be, and is usually the guardian. But the law is geared to look out for the patient's wishes.
Setting aside the Terri Schiavo case (if you possibly can), why is this a good idea?
And if this is indeed such a good idea for life-and-death decisions, then why not for issues like children, your estate, insurance, etc.? Why should these automatically go your spouse?
Here's the bottom line. We do not need to turn current law on its head because of a few exceptions. If someone, like yourself, has a real problem with your spouse making this decision, if it bothers you that much, then download a Living Will or a Durable Power of Attorney from the internet and name someone else as your guardian.
Need a link?
(Oh, what if it were Terri's parents who wanted to "pull the plug" but Michael said she wanted to live? Still feel the same?)
The law has already changed to stop parents from being the guardians of their children, so why did Michael have so much many rights??? You would think the courts could see his bad intentions!!
If a minor child wants to get birth control or an abortion, the PARENT has no right to this information and they CAN NOT stop the child!
Yet, a man with a new woman and children, was allowed to KILL his wife.
The law should not just be imparted by letter-of-the-law, there should be some compasion for morals and ethics.
The law, by itself, can be turned into a very ugly thing, and even limiting a spouses rights could turn ugly by granting too much authority to the government and courts!
This is why the expansion of the government into our daily affairs is very dangerous. Terri could have married a more decent man.
In the end, perhaps, the real power should stay in our own hands.