Posted on 06/15/2005 12:27:19 PM PDT by veronica
This exchange:
HIM: LOL, why don't you sue me?
ME: I'm not the one being libelled.
might have tipped you off.
Nonsense.
The main thing here is it calls into question his - and his interested siblings/cousins/in-laws - intentions.
What right do parents have to impose their wishes upon their adult children?
"You're implying their real desire was to kill her off themselves?"
I'm implying nothing.
"Anything you or I might say about his motives is sheer speculation."
Correct.
"You think he had venal reasons for acting so."
As you're always admonishing, don't ASS-U-ME here. I don't know anything about Michael for certain. I've said many times - esp. during the whole nitemare - that there is apparently no solid evidence he did anything bad (per se). He may have totally had her interests at heart.
I've always said the ultimate thing that makes me sick is the poor judgement by the judge on likewise FLIMSY evidence. That led to Terri's neglect and death.
"An alternative explanation is that it took him several years to become convinced that her state really was unrecoverable."
Yes, possible, but wouldn't that make him "terrible" according to the "rite-to-die" people to put her thru all that agony for years? Wasn't Terri in pretty bad shape from the get-go and showed little change?
The judge should've thought it queer that the man would apparently work hard on a woman who was apparently in a bad state for some years, then finally declare she wanted to die.
Maybe Michael is totally innocent, and LIKE the Schindlers, at 1st he didn't want to obey his wife and tried to get her better rather than let her wither away. Then maybe he just gave up, unlike the Schindlers, and decided he'd go along w/her wishes.
That all doesn't erase the fact that the evidence either way was flimsy, and supporting death on flimsy evidence seems very poor judgement and rule of law to me.
"""It is amazing to me that they will not find de-hydration/starvation as the manner of death."""
It is amazing to me that they will not find "de-hydration" as the manner of death.
Nobody but nobody ever died of starvation when both, water & food, were witheld at the same time. NOBODY!!
And you can take that to the bank!
By what NATURAL right does a *spouse* have to impose his wishes?
Again, in English, his was hearsay "he-said" evidence - WAY AFTER the fact.
It is no more their business than it is the business of those on the "right-to-life" side. Private. Family. Decisions.
Wasn't Terri in pretty bad shape from the get-go and showed little change?
Yes. I could understand, however, why someone might hang onto hope for years.
The judge should've thought it queer that the man would apparently work hard on a woman who was apparently in a bad state for some years, then finally declare she wanted to die.
Perhaps, perhaps not. Once MS accepted that she was not going to recover, then it seems reasonable that he would seek to act upon her wish not be remain in such a condition.
That all doesn't erase the fact that the evidence either way was flimsy, and supporting death on flimsy evidence seems very poor judgement and rule of law to me.
I'm not completely comfortable with the law in Florida, either, but as far as I can see it was followed in this case.
The spouse, under both natural and civil law, is automatically his spouse's legal guardian.
Marvin, I found a little- but not as much as I thought I would... part of the problem was the sheer volume of information- my 300+ replies within my post had multiple links, which led to more links often with hundreds of replies to them.
I found a little about the ME, nothing about the video of Terri by the lake, but one video ( above the double line ) that I had seen but forgotten about.
I tried searching FR for "Thogmartin" and got only a few returns- possibly a search engine different from Yahoo! would yield more results?
Anyway, here's what I found:
"'but wouldn't that make him "terrible" according to the "rite-to-die" people to put her thru all that agony for years?'
"It is no more their business than it is the business of those on the "right-to-life" side. Private. Family. Decisions."
But you were calling Schindlers on the carpet for the same. If they all still agreed, wouldn't you be disgusted by them ALL for "ignoring her wishes"?
The question was, "does XXXX have a right to impose *HIS* wishes....", not, who the GUARDIAN is. (And I stated NATURAL rights so there is no question or confusion w/made-up "rights" which are really privileges.) And there is no such thing as a "natural law" regarding "guardians".
There is NO NATURAL right to kill ANYone (and indeed, I'm assuming here that MS brought up the "Terri wanted to die" for his convenience, not cuz she actually said it). Murder is a violation of natural rights, regardless of your relationship.
"If you choose not to see that - fine. That does not stop me from seeing it."
I see a lot of things and strive to put them into context. For example, just because Cheney is Pres. of the Senate does not make him one in cahoots with Reid.
"What on earth are you talking about? lol And you call me confused?"
I have a vision... it's a woman in TX banging her head against the wall. ROFLMAO
Hang in there.
"The manner of death is different from the cause of death.
I don't see the difference. Can you explain?"
In more explicit terms:
What is the CAUSE and MANNER of death on the death certificate?
The cause of death is the specific reason that a person dies, for example a stab wound to the abdomen, gunshot wound to the head, asthma, atherosclerotic heart disease, blunt impacts to the head and torso, hanging, drug intoxication or AIDS. These are only several examples. The manner of death falls under one of several categories: homicide, accident, suicide, natural or undetermined. Some jurisdictions utilize another category, therapeutic complication. The cause and manner of death are always listed on the death certificate.
What is the MECHANISM of death?
The mechanism of death is the physiologic reason for a person's death. Etiologically, it is nonspecific, and does not specify the underlying or proximate cause of death. It is generally not placed on the death certificate. Examples are sepsis, shock, electrical irritability of the heart or brain, seizures, exsanguination, cardiac tamponade, pulmonary thromboemboli, and asphyxia.
http://www.forensiconline.com/generallink.htm#a27
Great FAQ post by a "Joseph I. Cohen, M.D., Forensic Pathologist"
"Terri was alive and healthy"
How do you define healthy?
"So that argument is moot."
No it begs for common sense in the face of reality.
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.