Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Cboldt
His obligation is to have TERRI's wishes followed, not his own. That is, he is not "in charge" in the sense that he is free to assert his wishes in place of hers.

He SLIPPED yesterday on nation TV and said " he doesn't know WHAT TERRI'S wishes are but these are HIS WISHES." I heard someone has the transcipts of that too.

873 posted on 03/22/2005 10:23:42 AM PST by pollywog (Psalm 121;1 I Lift my eyes to the hills from whence cometh my help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies ]


To: pollywog
He SLIPPED yesterday on nation TV and said " he doesn't know WHAT TERRI'S wishes are but these are HIS WISHES." I heard someone has the transcipts of that too.

I sort of followed the discussion of that, and if I understand correctly, Michales was mocking (repeating) what Terri's parents had said. The transcript doesn't illustrate that very well.

I just want to steer people to the fact that this is about Terri, and that Michael is "just another evidence witness." Sure, as husband he gets some benefit as an evidence witness, but he doesn't have (never did have) the right to substitute his desire for Terri's. Lot's of folks on this thread are talking as if the law has given Michael the right to determine Terri's wishes -- it hasn't. The law has concluded, based on evidence, that Terri's wish was to be starved to death.

Given the timing of Michael's recall, etc., I think the court is grossly mistaken on the factual determination.

912 posted on 03/22/2005 10:34:08 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson