Factually speaking, her HUSBAND, no matter what anyone thinks ABOUT him, IS the Next of Kin and LEGALLY, has the ONLY right to decide. Her parents, according to the LAW should lose the lawsuit. You may not like it but there it is.
AND
The DAMN GUBMINT has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS in this matter.
So...the moral aspect of this case does not phase you?
The only business the government should take in this matter is changing the law so a divorce can occur when there's an incapacitated spouse unable to sign forms or be capable of informed consent.
Parents can "abandon" or put up for adoption their children to a legal party, including the state. Husbands/wives do not have that option. We should allow it for these types of cases.
Then, the parents would take guardianship/custody back, and all would get what they want.
You are wrong, the husband is not automatically placed as the guardian when there is a conflict of interest. The best known case that illustrated this is the Sunny von Bulow case. But there are scores of others also.
>>>Factually speaking, her HUSBAND, no matter what anyone thinks ABOUT him, IS the Next of Kin and LEGALLY, has the ONLY right to decide. Her parents, according to the LAW should lose the lawsuit. You may not like it but there it is. >>>
Well hell, we just gave free reign for every abusive husband in the country (even IF Michael Schiavo didn't abuse his wife, it still gives cause for those who do) to just make sure she is damaged, not actually dead. Then you can kill her legally, make off with some cash and not have to serve a day in jail.
This statement above is absolutely ignorant. By your logic, parents would have the right to abuse or kill their children. Because they are the NEXT OF KIN and responsible for them.
AND The DAMN GUBMINT has ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS in this matter.
So if a hypothetical wife abuser beat his wife into a coma for insurance money, he should be able to put her in a death house and starve her to death? Would that be because she's his property? Do you also think fathers should be able to kill daughters who shame the family by kissing a boy they're not married to? It's the law in some countries. Is that all it takes for you? No worry about justice, just what's written down -- never look case by case? Strange.
I don't know all the facts here, but I know enough to know that this needs a closer look. And, I believe in hospice, I have a living will, and I don't feel prolonging suffering needlessly is virtuous. The situation with Terri is not an old person with incurable cancer being kept alive by a machine. Something is different here. One reason for our legal system to protect the innocent and powerless from the corrupt and powerful... Your position is the opposite.
Do you feel death row rapist/killers should get nine to twenty years to defend themselves? -- I suspect you would never allow a child rapist murder like the man who killed Jessica to be killed by starvation. "Death by starvation" would be too cruel and unusual" for liberals -- and for you, how would you feel about that? If it's cruel and unusual for a killer, is it also cruel and unusual for an innocent injured disabled woman?
You mean other than enforcing the government-mandated legality of husband as defined by government-recognized marriage certificate and ceremony being the legally defined (by government) next of kin and therefore having the government-defined legal right to determine whether his wife lives or dies in the current government-defined finding of fact as to her being in a persistent vegative state?
Not true if there is enough evidence for a grand jury to indict the husband.
Also not true if there is enough medical evidence that she is able to respond to questions about her own well being.
I'm not a fan of the state being usurped by the feds, but it GWB and most everyone else is right that the state should err on the side of sparing Schiavo's life. People on death row certainly get their share of appeals, and an innocent woman deserves more than a convicted serial rapist/murder/child molester like that vermin who killed that kid in Florida last week.
Too much irony in that. I'm actually impressed by Congress and the President in this matter. They've actually, for once, restored some common sense into the situation, and demanded that the person about to die get all the benefits of the doubt.
Go back to your DUngeon!
Immoral laws, like immoral and unlawful orders, are meant to be broken.
The fact that you can make this comment shows that you are caring more for the law than justice. You're wrong on this one.
Right on all counts! For those who are still uninformed, make plans with your loved ones ahead of time, obtain a "DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY, MEDICAL" outlining your wishes, Signed, witnessed, notarized AND recorded. Give a copy to your doctor and a copy to the hospital. This powerful document will ensure that those persons named in the document will have the final say so as to your treatment. The names (usually family members) will be listed in order of priority, if one dies or is otherwise unavailable it moves to the next and so on. I am not an attorney, so do your own research. I am a survivor, my wife passed away last year, peacefully, surrounded by family. She was in a terminal condition. She was not in pain and she was not dehydrated because we made sure that this treatment was specified in the document and at least one family member was with her 24/7 to ensure that it was carried out. We were blessed with a wonderful doctor and a wonderful hospital staff. Terri's situation is more heartrending because no one can say that her condition is terminal. My thoughts and prayers are with her family - all of them!
First, no one has the "right" to serve as another's guardian. The court grants authority to an individual to serve.
Second, there are persons who start out with a presumption in favor of being allowed to serve. I have read the first 200 posts on this thread and there seems to be more than one opinion as to what the law states. In my experience, it is usually instructive to actually read the law in question to determine its intent.
Accordingly, here is a copy of the Florida statute regarding guardianships:
"
(1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (4), the court may appoint any person who is fit and proper and qualified to act as guardian, whether related to the ward or not.
(2) The court shall give preference to the appointment of a person who:
(a) Is related by blood or marriage to the ward;
(b) Has educational, professional or business experience relevant to the nature of services sought to be provided;
(c) Has the capacity to manage the financial resources involved; or
(d) Has the ability to meet the requirements of the law and the unique needs of the individual case.
(3) The court shall also:
(a) Consider the wishes expressed by the incapacitated person as to who shall be appointed guardian;
(b) Consider the preference of a minor who is age 14 or over as to who should be appointed guardian;
(c) Consider any person designated as guardian in any will in which the ward is a beneficiary.
(4) If the person designated is qualified to serve pursuant to s. 744.309, the court shall appoint any standby guardian or preneed guardian, unless the court determines that appointing such person is contrary to the best interest of the ward."
As you can see, the staute provides that a person related by blood or marriage are given preference.
Hmmmmm.....This is one area the government should be in--protecting a life.
Since Nov 9, 2004
A baby bumble newbie.
So, if a husband commits attempted murder, which is a possibility in this case (that has yet to be appropriately investigated), he should get to finish the job by starving her to death by court order???
Ya gotta be kidding.