I see your point. However my point was that Florida Law was the ONLY thing that mattered in this case. Not feelings, suspicions, documentation or even, dare I say it, morality.
Thus, no where in this country should someone be starved and dehydrated to death without documentation.
So what you want is a law in every state (this is NOT a Federal issue) that would REQUIRE a family to keep a loved one on life support, INDEFINITELY, regardless of the doctors prognosis, unless that family could present WRITTEN approval from the family member in question? You really think that's a good idea? I don't. There simply are to many variables and unique situations that can come up. I think the decision is best left to the next of kin. They are most likely to have the victims best interest at heart. Please note, I said "most likely".
there exists a little thing called FAMILY COURT, which would have been the more proper venue for this case, rather than probate court
Great, another law to pass. All end of life cases should be handled in Family Court. I'm not sure about that one, given all the issues of money and property involved, I feel probate court is the appropriate place to hash that out. But even if it was handled in Family Court, what makes you think it would have turned out any different? Is there a reason you think it would? Wouldn't it be just as dependent on the judge in the case as it is anywhere else?
Michael was residing with another woman, with whom he had two children, and therefore his "marriage" to Terri was in name only and was anything but typical. While legally he may still have been her husband MORALLY he was not.
All that shows is that he did things you, and I for that matter, consider to be morally wrong. He did NOTHING illegal. Sorry, that's just the way it is. It was disgusting of him to behave that way IMO, but NOT ILLEGAL. THAT is the material point.
The laws as they currently exist in many places will have to be changed to avoid other similar tragedies.
THAT is the proper way to address this, not to call for the Governor and the President to BREAK THE LAW, as MANY here did. There are some instances where private citizens disobeying a law is called for. But the standard for Political Leaders to break the law, is far greater IMO. And the life of one person of questionable consciousness was simply not worth the crisis that would have befallen this nation if they had done more than the law allows.
This was a family matter, and should never have been made into the media circus that it was. The family's behavior in that regard repulsed me, as did the behavior of the protesters at the time.
As much as we disagree on this issue, one thing we can agree on. You have the right to petition the government to change the laws as you see fit. And I have the right to vote for or against them depending on their actions. I suspect thats exactly what will happen.
Very well stated.