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

To: WFTR
Some changes to guardianship law would be good, including provisions to prevent a judge from sitting on guardianship challengs without addressing them.

Otherwise, I think it might be necessary to explicitly say in the statutes that advance directives resulting in death should only be acted upon if there is no plausible way that those directives could have been faked. Of course, that's what "clear and compelling" evidence is supposed to mean, but with judges like King George on the bench one can never be too careful.

BTW, to avoid hangups with Browning, it might be necessary to allow oral declarations in certain circumstances. Having the legislature mandate the terms might be better than having the court do it. Therefore, I'd suggest something like the following [repost from another thread]:


I would suggest that oral statements should generally not be "clear and compelling" in the absense of anything to authenticate them (such as a videotape, etc.) It is trivial for an unscrupulous person to attribute to people things they never said. There may be a few cases where an oral statement could constitute clear and compelling evidence, but only if all of the following apply:
  1. The statement is heard by enough independent people who would have no motive to invent it, that a conspiracy to invent would be implausible.
  2. There is consensus about what was said and what was meant, the statements were clearly intended to serve as a living directive, and the claimed meaning is plausible.
  3. There is a logical reason why the person making the statement was unable to personally put it into tangible form.
  4. The statement is disclosed to people who can officially record it as quickly as practical.
An example of a case where purely oral statements might constitute clear and compelling evidence would be a train wreck, where an injured passenger tells others of his wishes prior to losing conciousness. In such a case, if the other passengers were to report what the passenger said as quickly as practical to officials, I would say such statements could be regarded as 'clear and compelling' evidence:
  1. Unless the other passengers conspired to cause the crash, they would seem an unlikely group to conspire to invent a story.
  2. There would be little confusion about the person's statements or the purpose thereof.
  3. The person's decision to give the statement orally rather than writing or recordig it would be clear and logical given exigent circumstances.
  4. The witnessess to the statement would be able to report it in timely fashion.
As you can see, I wouldn't outlaw all non-recorded oral statements, but I would only allow them in places where there would be no reason to doubt them. Let's see how Terri's "wishes" stack up:
  1. Her wishes were heard by an openly-adulterous husband, his brother, and his sister-in-law. One of them had a very clear and obvious conflict of interest, and conspiracy by the others is highly plausible.
  2. The three people witnesses Terri's claim that Terri spoke to each of them at a different time; there is thus zero corroboration. There is no particular reason to believe Terri's statements--if she made them--were meant to be enforceable as a living will. At the time Terri's statements were made, hydration by any means was not considered life support and therefore a claim that she intended them to justify the removal of same would seem implausible.
  3. There is no logical reason why, if Terri wanted her supposed wishes carried out, she could not have written them down.
  4. The statements were not recalled until seven years after Terri's 'collapse'--long after they were supposedly made.
Do you think my criteria for accepting oral statements are too rigid? Terri's siblings' hearsay testimony fails all of them.
59 posted on 04/03/2005 9:43:55 PM PDT by supercat ("Though her life has been sold for corrupt men's gold, she refuses to give up the ghost.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: supercat
"Otherwise, I think it might be necessary to explicitly say in the statutes that advance directives resulting in death should only be acted upon if there is no plausible way that those directives could have been faked."

Don't you think advanced directives resulting in death should only be in WRITING????

60 posted on 04/03/2005 9:47:29 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Evil succeeds when good men don't do enough!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

To: supercat
Do you think my criteria for accepting oral statements are too rigid? Terri's siblings' hearsay testimony fails all of them.

Where there's contradictory hearsay evidence from first degree relatives, shouldn't the law be written to favor life?

Also, a minor point: Alan Dershowitz claims that hearsay testimony reported by a spouse is not legally considered "hearsay." (He used a legal term for such an utterance, but I forget it was.)

According to him, the law gives higher credence to what a spouse claims his or her spouse said, than to what anyone else (including blood relatives) claims the person said.

86 posted on 04/04/2005 6:33:58 AM PDT by shhrubbery!
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies ]

To: supercat
There is consensus about what was said and what was meant, the statements were clearly intended to serve as a living directive, and the claimed meaning is plausible.

You did well capturing this point. There's a world of difference between saying "I wouldn't want to live that way" as a vague hypothetical and saying "I want food removed" as clear instruction. If Greer ever presided over a murder trial and the victim were once heard to have used the expression "Just shoot me," I wonder whether Greer would rule that the killer was just following directions.

Bill

153 posted on 04/04/2005 7:07:56 PM PDT by WFTR (Liberty isn't for cowards)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | 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