Posted on 06/15/2005 12:27:19 PM PDT by veronica
If she didn't starve to death, then how did she die?
It does and it doesn't. Try "tortious interference". ;)
Wow - great catch. On FR someone always see through to the truth behind the stupidity.
Her years of being cared for and no one ever mentioned she was blind. And the diagnosis of PVS was based not even knowing this primary fact.
Lets not forget that it was the declaration of her being PVS that made it legal to kill her. So of the two declarations the declaration the SHE WAS PVS was key.
"Do you think that just the marriage contract can be broken with impunity or any ole contract?"
You can violate the terms of ANY contract with impunity, as long as the other party to it does not complain, and even then, the contract is not broken until the court says so.
If this were not true, there would be people who are now single because their spouse cheated, many who never knew it.
Imagine a widow who finds out she's been living in sin with
a "husband" who "broke their contract" 40 years ago - and now she can't get his Social Security.
"... and the link showing that this was based on her lack of visual cues is where ? "
"Her years of being cared for and no one ever mentioned she was blind. And the diagnosis of PVS was based not even knowing this primary fact. "
Actually, it was the people saying she was NOT PVS were the ones trying to do so based on her supposed response to visual stimuli. Right?
It was the people who believed she WAS indeed PVS that had said from the beginning that she DOES NOT RESPOND to visual stimuli.
Lets not get it backwards.
Exactly.
You'll have to enlighten me. I can see how the person who interferes in the contract may incur liability but I can't see how the contractor eludes liability. Remember I am but an egg where the law is concerned. Now golf is another matter.
It does have bearing, though, since the Schindlers encouraged him to 'break the contract', and then tried to use his 'breaking of the contract' as a reason to claim he was conflicted and thus should not have the right to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf.
And I have a kid who's starting golf lessons, so maybe you're available on weekends this summer? ;)
Not quite. Killing your spouse violates the contract even though the spouse can never complain. And you will lose your spousal rights to control your spouses estate because you violated the marriage contract. But there are those who think violtaing contracts is a trivial matter, you one of those?
If this were not true, there would be people who are now single because their spouse cheated, many who never knew it.
Your statement was not true, period, cheating and forgiving spouses not withstanding.
Imagine a widow who finds out she's been living in sin with a "husband" who "broke their contract" 40 years ago - and now she can't get his Social Security.
Imagine a husband who attempts to murder his wife, he fails at the attempt to murder but succeeds in damaging his wife to the point she can not remember or relate the attack. He takes up with another woman and starts a family. He eyeballs the assets of the old wife and petitions the state to put her out of her misery to access those assets and get on with his new life.. The state complies. Imagine that.
The manner of death is different from the cause of death. The manner of death is unknown. The cause of death is dehydration.
Because she is dead - wake up.
"It does have bearing, though, since the Schindlers encouraged him to 'break the contract', and then tried to use his 'breaking of the contract' as a reason to claim he was conflicted and thus should not have the right to make medical decisions on Terri's behalf."
Good point, especially in light of the "benefit" they would receive by him violating the contract, and possibly having it broken.
I hope your son enjoys it, I know I do and I say that as an ex jock who used to ridicule the sport until I got hooked at the age of 46.
The 2nd DCA said the Schindlers, the parents, were conflicted as well. Seems to me that according to Florida law the next in line for guardianship is TS's brother and sister, not the state.
In this country you have to be PROVEN guilty, which is why accusations and suspicions brought up a decade later by people who would stand to benefit are simply not given a lot of credence.
Good post. Hope some can understand the simple thing of love that wishes to help rather than allow a man to freely kill their daughter BASED ON HIS MEMORY OF A STATEMENT SUPPOSEDLY MADE BY TERRI. Only remembered AFTER he received the malpractice settlement which was intended to care for Terri the rest of her life - not to pay for efforts to kill her. Another point that the judge just skirted over in his efforts to help Michael.
Thought judges were to be impartial. Thought both sides were to be treated equally - but that is another point in this 15 year tragedy.
Imagine somebody making such a claim too explicitly and getting sued for libel.
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.