Posted on 03/21/2005 2:14:45 PM PST by sonsofliberty2000
Well, if you trust your wife give her a handwritten power of attorney (the recommended language for your state is almost certainly available on-line, though I don't know exactly where). On the other hand, I hope you would recognize that for the government to give blanket power to all spouses in such matters would result in people being able to murder their spouses with impunity.
That says it all! This would have been unheard of in years gone by....except in Germany.
Not quite. If she had a living will, this would all be moot, she'd have been dehydrated/starved years ago, no outrage at all. Like i said, this happens every day to people just like Terri. So why have we picked this fight? What about the people who can't even afford to remain on life support like Terri's? Why aren't we fighting for them?
It can be, sometimes, but uncorroborated hearsay should not be regarded as "clear and compelling" evidence, especially when there is conflicting hearsay. In Michael Schiavo's case, the hearsay testimony was given seven years after the fact, and there is no evidence to suggest that Michael and his siblings were aware of Terri's "wishes" prior to testifying against them. Indeed, there is substantial hearsay testimony against Michael [admissible under the "statements against interest" rule] which would suggest that he made up Terri's "wishes" well after the fact.
No requirement to notify the official in advance. Just make sure your wife has a document which is clearly and unmistakably in your handwriting.
Generally true, but to suggest that a married man who has moved in with another woman, sired two children by her, and pledged to marry her, should retain any authority as "husband", is to make a mockery of marriage.
Where have I heard that before? *Grins*
Don't despair... good will come out of this.
See, your premise supposes too much common sense, therefore liberals judges will all rule the opposite everytime they perceive it.
Not they would neccessarily ever recognize any common sense...
"Logically, one cannot say whether her starvation will be painless if there is not even a consensus among experts regarding her level of awareness, let alone if she is indeed in a PVS. Beyond that there isn't even a consensus about PVS itself. Definitions vary.
Also, this is what I wonder about concerning those in favor of starving Terri Schiavo: if you think her condition warrants mercy killing than why starvation? Why not something quicker like lethal injection? And why not have some backbone and say emphatically that you support the legalization of euthanasia?"
I never said any such things. I was taken from context, again.
"No it will not. Have you ever been dehydrated? Ever seen what happens? Starved to death?"
Thousands of people across the country, every day, die in this manner. My cousin has terminal cancer and if people are asserting that such people feel the pain (the body does go into shock before death), then I am in for agony when her time comes."
"This is the what the whole issue revolves around, that she is NOT AWARE, PVS."
I am not a doctor, but I do know certain parts of the brain control certain functions.
"Ask your nurse friend if she forgot to mention the painkillers."
People are misunderstanding. My nurse friend is not for this, she was trying to comfort me because I was so sick about it.
I heard last night that Bush signed a bill while Governor of Texas that authorized pulling the plug on people against their families wishes if they are indigent. Is this true?
"I spoke to a couple people during the weekend, and completely changed their minds by educating them by citing facts such as those you just mentioned."
I have been watching different news channels on this, and one had Michael Schiavo on. He claims she said she wouldn't want to go on in this state, while friends said she indicated where there's life, there's hope. He also said Terri cannot swallow, but wouldn't she choke to death if she couldn't swallow? Also, her friends and family said they believe domestic violence was involved and that she had bruises and broken bones!
Most disturbing to me was that one of her friends said she was planning on leaving her husband and moving in with her. Arrogant, mean Michael claimed that Terri and he were doing wonderful, and trying to get pregnant. Michael appeared to me the epitome of the battering husband. Even when he was in the room with her being videotaped, I felt there was an "edge" of impatience in his words. I looked at here eyes and she looked fearful of him. When she was with her mother, I saw love and joy. I would not want to go on in her state, but I strongly feel that she should be rehabilitated so she can tell us what Michael, if anything, did to her that night!
"Look. I have deep affection for President Bush and up till now have been an ardent supporter. The bottom line is he has done too little too late. He is responsible."
I heard Bush signed a bill in Texas while Governor that permitted hospitals to pull the plug (against family wishes) if the patient is indigent. Does anyone have details or has anyone researched this to see if it is true?
I really, really hope it isn't.
Michael was asked that question by a caller on Larry King last night. He said he wants to carry out her wishes. I don't believe his lies. If Michael is right and she can't feel anything, then why does he so strenuously object to her living? His lawyer also admitted that her rehabilitation money went for attorney fees. Michael was asked also how much money he will get, and his crafty lawyer said "he will INHERIT nothing." No mention of life insurance money.
"There's big money to be made from the dead. There's life insurance, like the policy Terry's husband bought from his new wife before Terry's "accident." She was his insurance broker."
Felos last night admitted on LKL that her rehab money went to legal fees. He lied and said Michael will "inherit" nothing, without mention of life insurance policy! I bet he has two motives now--to cover up his role in her "incident" and to pay off this lawyer with the life insurance money.
This is an excerpt re: the allegation I heard last night, that Bush as Gov signed a law. It was presented to me as applying to indigent people, allowing hospitals to decide, over the wishes of the family, to pull the plug on patients.
I will do more research, but at first glance it appears Bush is a hypocrite on this issue, however I don't see the part about "pulling the plug" because they are indigent.
*The new law appears to conflict with a Texas law Bush signed as governor, according to lawyers familiar with the legislation. The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas allows a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.
Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, told the Associated Press that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, the husband would have been her surrogate decision maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued, he said.
more...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55214-20...
Discuss
Here's more on Bush's signing of the 1999 Advance Directives Act while Governor. It does alot of things, but doesn't address family conflicts over medical treatment. The dems DID lie when they said the law allows medical personnel to decide to pull the plug on indigent patients. But the law also makes it easier for terminally ill people to die sooner.
http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=bush+texas+1999+advance+directives+act&ei=UTF-8&u=www.premack.com/columns/1999/990813.htm&w=bush+texas+1999+advance+directives+act&d=63322826B4&icp=1&.intl=us
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.