[Gondring]

...no one really knew what she wanted or what happened or what she would have chosen if she could have chosen.

That's why we have courts...they get stuck deciding the unknowns. It's the best system we have come up with...if you think that the "automatically goes to parents" is a better system than courts, I'd have to disagree.

Besides, does anyone think that any of the FReepers knew Mrs. Schiavo better than her husband?? I don't care how familiar they feel when they call her "Terri" and say they miss her, I would bet that Mr. Schiavo knew her better.

Terri's parents are parents. To want to care for your child when your child needs care is a natural human response for the vast majority of parents.

That's fine, but it doesn't give the right to control adult children's lives. Besides, the natural human response for a vast majority of husbands is to provide for their brides (heck, as I waited 2 hours for a shower at a Christian concert festival recently [only one line for men vs. three for women], the predominant concern of the men in line was how to meet the needs of their wives and other females in their family..."Where can I find a place for her hair dryer?" "My wife wants to visit her family--how can I get back in through the traffic so I can get her there?" etc. So why not presume the spouse is acting in her interests?

Mrs. Schiavo left her parents to cleave to a spouse. If she were such a strong Roman Catholic as some claim, she would follow the Bible, no? That would turn her from her parents..right?

In fact, I know many married people who share things with their spouse that would never be told to parents.

[summer]

So why not presume the spouse is acting in her interests?

Because some people felt that when her husband wanted to pull the plg OVER allowing her parents to care for her -- that this was wrong.

To them, that would constitute "abuse."

Let me try to sum up this way: For some people on the extreme left, this case was a "Right to Die" case, and a "Right to Life" case for those who some say are on the extreme right.

But, for others watching this matter, it was neither one of the above -- rather, it was a "Right to Care For" case, with the parents showing the desire and will to care for their daughter.

Parents seeing it this way could not help but side with those parents. They did not see why parents should be denied the right to care for their child when no written directions existed for that adult child now incapacitated.

No such right to care like that can ever exist when a spouse sees it one way, and the parents see it the other way, and the courts recognize the spouse's view but not the parents' view. And, again, I am certain we will see this type of case again.

Thanks to you and others for an interesting discussion. (I stayed up way later than I intended!)