Posted on 01/06/2007 5:52:57 PM PST by wagglebee
>> If he was thought to be compromised in that role, there should have been a challenge to his guardianship
There were several legal challenges. Did you read anything the case?
There were no successful legal challenges. None were found to have any merit.
Besides, Terri's parents obviously didn't think that he had a conflict of interest. Speaks volumes.
You are confused. The quote that you exerpted was a hypothetical, not referring to this case specifically.
That is a very peculiar reaction to me quoting you.
That is false. The Schindlers did not sue to challenge Michael's guardianship until they learned, years later, from attorney Deborah Bushnell, that Michael planned to kill their daughter.
You are taking a quote out of context.
I posted a hypothetical to another poster. You are pretending that I was referring to the Schiavo case in particular.
That is where the confusion comes in.
You didn't state it as hypothetical. It was 100% erroneous whether hypothetical or not.
Not false at all - the Schindlers encouraged Schiavo to date other people, years before they decided that they didn't like his guardianship.
The quote was made to me and it was about Michael Schiavo and nobody else.
But whatever. You are clouding the issue with semantics.
Not terribly helpful, but not terribly surprising, either - the Schiavo threads tend to be loaded with emotional responses.
Of course they did. That's a family question that has nothing to do with guardianship. They didn't object to his guardianship until he abused it to try to kill Terri.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Perhaps you can tell who does not want treatment by reading their mind? You are a psychic maybe?
There is no legal distinction for a judge to determine all by himself, without a jury, that someone's life should be ended by the action of the state. That is tyranny, fascism, or whatever the hell you want to call it...
As for the "moral" distinction, your problem is you just like to play "god" and I'm an atheist...
You obviously didn't read the name "BykrBayb" very carefully if you think you were posting to a "him." And of course, the context WAS the Terri Schiavo case, just as I had it.
Here's what you said, word for word, annotated:
>>That's very cute rhetoric, but it isn't what happened here. [N.b. -- the "here" refers to the Schiavo case.]
>> The state didn't make the medical decisions. Her [Terri's] husband [Michael] did, as is his right and his obligation.
This is not a "hypothetical" husband now, is it? It's Michael. You do say he made the decision to kill Terri, just as I reported. You say it is "his right" to make the medical decision. That is nonsense. Guardians have no right either to practice medicine or cause harm or death to their wards. If Michael made the decision, as I noted earlier, he committed murder. That's why he vehemently denies that it was his decision.
Let's roll :-)
Thank you. Busy on other fronts for a bit but I will return to this with interest, be sure.
Yeap. One thing about an aborted baby and Terri Schiavo, neither of them are or were permitted in court. Keep up the good work for FR.
"the Schindlers encouraged Schiavo to date other people, years before they decided that they didn't like his guardianship."
Of course they did. That's a family question that has nothing to do with guardianship. They didn't object to his guardianship until he abused it to try to kill Terri.
See, here's the problem when you join in a conversation without reading all the relevant posts. My original post was in response to garv, who said:
When you say "husband" are you referring to the guy who was living with another woman and had fathered several children?
I'm glad you agree with me, that garv's attack on Michael Schiavo was without foundation and had "nothing to do" with the legitimacy of his guardianship.
Perhaps you can tell who does not want treatment by reading their mind? You are a psychic maybe?
When it comes to my wife, I don't need to read her mind (good thing, because she and I both know that I certainly can't). I have the legal right to infer what she would want in such circumstances, based on our private relationship.
The state should keep its grubby paws out of that relationship - they have no right to interfere with family medical decisions. If you don't want your spouse making such decisions on your behalf, that's easy enough to arrange.
Guardians have no right either to practice medicine or cause harm or death to their wards. If Michael made the decision, as I noted earlier, he committed murder. That's why he vehemently denies that it was his decision.
Come now, let's keep it clear. Michael's decision was to follow the medical advice of his wife's doctors in regards to her treatment.
You don't have to like the course of treatment that he and her doctors decided to pursue, but that is not particularly material to their decisions. Private family medical decisions should remain just that - private. Not the State's business.
From the court testimony that I have read, Michael lied about that. In fact, on one occasion, the nursing home had to step in and prevent him from killing her. It's all in the court records.
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.