[Sabatier]

The Appeals Court wrote in this case that,

In circumstances such as
these, when families cannot agree, the law has
opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial
judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make
decisions about life-prolonging measures."

The judge has to choose between opposing points of view in a very emotional and difficult situation where there are also moral issues at stake. It gets to be pretty muddy territory from a legal point of view.

[Sabatier]

There's lots more coverage on this case at WND for anybody interested. This is a good place to start:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33877
What seems to be the heart of the matter in this story is that for years the husband as guardian didn't get therapy for his wife, the courts look at her and say, in effect, she looks real hopeless, pull the plug. The family is saying, of course she looks bad, she never got therapy but let us provide it. You have opposing attitudes towrd life in a case like this, one positive and optimistic, and one negative and pessimistic. Doesn't it seem like the courts in their interpretations of the law keep siding with the negative, pessimistic attitude toward life?

[Theodore R.]

The judge has to choose between opposing points of view in a very emotional and difficult situation where there are also moral issues at stake. It gets to be pretty muddy territory from a legal point of view.

Sorry, but I don't buy the line that the poor judge has to struggle to decide such "emotional" cases. A woman is about to be starved to death by liberal judges, and no one much seems to care. The parents would take her but the "husband" wants her dead. I don't think these judges are fair under any understanding of that misused word: I think the judges are ideologues of the left and "worship" at the mantle of abortion, euthanasia, "separation of church and state," and other liberal causes.