It Has Begun

[gauchecritic]

a dog up the street was 'disabled' and could walk down the front steps to the lawn. so the owner carried the dog's hips so the dog could get to the front lawn. i recently met the owner, and the dog's situation had worsened to where he could not walk at all. he was put to sleep.

when a thing can't fulfill its function, its life is over. that is 'nature' and 'natural law.' a tiger that can't hunt, dies.

humans have 'higher functions,' and Stephen Hawking can think, communicate and 'write books' though at a grave physicl disability.

there is no evidence that TS can do cognizing or communicating; there is no evidence of 'life of the mind.' so her time is over, and only the zealots was to go against God, nature, and Terri's wishes.

Right, I see, disabled people = animals. The best thing you could do now is draw your line before someone calls you a nazi.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Right, I see, disabled people = animals. The best thing you could do now is draw your line before someone calls you a nazi.

I havea question for you gauche, and for anyone else who would like to chime in. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just genuinely curious.

Is there any differentiation in your mind between disabled and incognitive? Or is incognitive simply and extreme form of disability?

 

[impressive]

I havea question for you gauche, and for anyone else who would like to chime in. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just genuinely curious.

Is there any differentiation in your mind between disabled and incognitive? Or is incognitive simply and extreme form of disability?

To me, "incognitive" means without brain function AT ALL -- i.e., on life support to maintain heart beat and respiration.

Imposing our own perceptions of what type life -- and what level of cognition -- is worth living is, to me, the most heinous act. If we're going to make that type of judgement call, why not cut it off at an IQ of, say, 50? Everyone knows people with low IQs will never amount to anything but a drain on public resources. Let's get rid of 'em, too. Their lives aren't worth living, either.

Oh, and those pesky autistic people -- might as well do a little genetic cleansing there, too. Down syndrome? Buh-bye. Clean out the prisons next.

Pretty soon we'll all be perfect.

 

[BohemianEcstasy]

I cannot even begin to imagine the horror this woman and her loved ones must be enduring. She interacts with her parents, and if provided appropriate therapies (that have been withheld) stands a reasonable chance of regaining some communication skills. At the very least, those therapies should be provided in order to determine her true wishes.

1) Yeah, I'm back--sorry I was gone for like a year, I worked at a church camp this summer (so I had no access to lit--sad, sad months.) Then I had fallen off the face of the earth. But I'm back! And I have a new pending submssion...another professor story.

2) I haven't read all of this thread, so I'm SURE this has been said about six hundred times. But she's not feeling any horror. She's not feeling anything, in fact, except perhaps pain. I don't know how much of her medical story you know, but she experienced a period of anoxia of 5-10 minutes, long enough to kill off and essentially liquefy her cerebral cortex, the portion of your brain that controls emotion, cognition, will...everything that makes us human. Everything deeper than that can survive like 20 minutes of anoxia--so her brain can keep her heart beating, keep her breathing, keep her seeming to express things (not in response to stimuli), and control periods of wakefulness and sleep, but it has no ability to think. It's operating very much from the basic instinct stage. No one has ever come out of a permanent/persistive vegetative state lasting more than about nine months. She's been in one for fifteen years.

If you consider "none" to be a reasonable chance, then yes, she has a reasonable chance. But this doctor-created disease is a chronic and anti-terminal one. She would have died naturally (and peacefully, believe it or not, thanks to ketosis) had the let nature run its course. That's not brutal, it's humane. Everyone whines about the right to live, what about the right to die? Either way, we're making a decision for her. It's not just delaying the inevitable decision, it's making the decision every day.


I know that this sounds very coarse--it's not intended to be personal or against anyone. This has been my position on it since I heard the case for both sides.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

To me, "incognitive" means without brain function AT ALL -- i.e., on life support to maintain heart beat and respiration.

Imposing our own perceptions of what type life -- and what level of cognition -- is worth living is, to me, the most heinous act. If we're going to make that type of judgement call, why not cut it off at an IQ of, say, 50? Everyone knows people with low IQs will never amount to anything but a drain on public resources. Let's get rid of 'em, too. Their lives aren't worth living, either.

Oh, and those pesky autistic people -- might as well do a little genetic cleansing there, too. Down syndrome? Buh-bye. Clean out the prisons next.

Pretty soon we'll all be perfect.

Jeeze.

I wasn't trying to start an argument, nor volunteering to be pilloried. I merely asked if Gauche or others here had a differentiation in their mind between incognitive and disabled.

 

[impressive]

Jeeze.

I wasn't trying to start an argument, nor volunteering to be pilloried. I merely asked if Gauche or others here had a differentiation in their mind between incognitive and disabled.

Didn't mean to jump on you, Colly. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Didn't mean to jump on you, Colly. I'm sorry if it came across that way.

It's okies, I know it's an emotional issue to everyone and has special significance to you.

I only asked the question, because it seems to me that those who wish to keep her on a feeding tube indefintely and those who favor removing it, seem to have a major disconnect over that issue.

Barring those who simply refuse to accept anyone should die for religious or ethical resons, I got the impresion that those who favor leaving her alive see being incognitive as simply a more severe form of disabilty, while those who favor removal, seem to think a lack of self awareness isn't a disability, but means life has ended.

 

[gauchecritic]

Colly, yes there probably is a distinct difference between being incognative and disabled. What I'm disputing is anyone's ability to define incognitive to any verifiable degree.

Whilst I can't imagine what it would be like to be unable to respond in any physical way to stimulus and therefore can't say whether it would be a living hell or a heaven what we seem to have, particularly in this thread, is opinion based on hearsay (however professional the source) and I would rather err on the side of optimism than deprive someone of life based on my external conjecture.

Three things:

My feelings are probably akin to the Victorian popularity of having a bell fitted to coffins on the vague chance that the doctor got his diagnosis wrong.

The idea that feeding is a medical aid.

My conviction that those who label certain people as having learning disabilities when a great deal of the time, it seems to me, it's the educationalists that are teaching disabled.

My original "aside" to Peur was more of a defence (which he never asked for) to attempt to head off any vitriolic 'nazi' remarks which could have been laid at his door. (as Imp's response illustrated)


(Imp, explanation PM imminent)

 

[impressive]

(Imp, explanation PM imminent)

I won't go so far as to say, "Where there is life, there's hope" but I firmly believe that, "Where there is desire for life, there's hope."

I don't believe for one second that Ms. Schiavo is oblivious to her environs, that her reactions are mere reflexes, or that her husband is attempting to carry out her wishes.

If the anecdotal evidence (the Weller account, videos, etc.) is insufficient to convey that desire for life in Ms. Schiavo, then consider her health. In a HOSPICE, without any interventive therapies, she has remained strong for over a decade. A person without a will to live would deteriorate under those conditions. They'd give up. Apathy alone would adversely impact health.

If there is enough brain activity to maintain bodily functions, then there's enough brain activity to grow, learn, and improve. Every renowned neurologist on the planet can claim otherwise and it won't change the fact that I've seen it happen.

 

[elsol]

:
A person without a will to live would deteriorate under those conditions. They'd give up. Apathy alone would adversely impact health.

An autonomic system does not know how to shutdown.

In the situation that you're talking about, something is making a choice; a choice not to continue.

If this is your argument, I would say the husband and doctors are right and this is just a body that doesn't know how to die because it has been reduced to its most basic function... to live.

As long as it gets what it needs, it will continue to live.

Kinda like a house will continue to stand whether or not anyone is living in it.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Huckleman2000]

I don't think he should have 'unilaterally declared it unconstitutional'.

I think there is now a bigger issue for all of us than Terri Schiavo's life... the politicians made it a bigger issue.

I don't see a resolution to the bigger issue from either the federal court or the federal court of appeals... that's bothering me because I don't want the state's rights issue to fall to the wayside and for Congress to assume 'Oh, we can do this from now on."

I understand the life and death issue, but stick the tube back in and unravel this cock up... there is nowhere else to go so since we're on the track, let's ride it out.

Sincerely,
ElSol

I believe what happened is that the judge refused to issue a stay while the constitutionality of the law is determined. Thus, he didn't rule on the law, per se, he refused to grant an injunction to enforce the law in the meantime. This was ruling on a motion by the Schindlers lawyers. What the judge said, in effect, was that there's a snowball's chance in hell that this law is going to hold up, and the legal action thus far has said that Terri's wish is her husband's wish. Ergo sum.

 

[elsol]

I only asked the question, because it seems to me that those who wish to keep her on a feeding tube indefintely and those who favor removing it, seem to have a major disconnect over that issue.

Barring those who simply refuse to accept anyone should die for religious or ethical resons, I got the impresion that those who favor leaving her alive see being incognitive as simply a more severe form of disabilty, while those who favor removal, seem to think a lack of self awareness isn't a disability, but means life has ended.

Colleen, you're framing the 'disconnect' from the left perspective... let's frame it from the 'religious' one. (I'm Catholic though a bit of an odd one, but I have devout fascination with all things Christian.)

Let's say that Michael Schiavo walked into the hospital room and put six bullets into Terri Schiavo's heart. I'll stipulate ALL doctors have said 'no cognitive function; no chance of recovery'.

Did he just commit murder?
Did he just kill her?

-- Small break into the secular
Should he be charged with any crime? (He has valid firearms permit for his gun.)

Now, a lot of people would say "Yes, he killed her." or "Yes, he murdered her.", less would probably say "Charge him with murder!"

Is there a difference between medical-starvation, six bullets, or a lethal dose of morphine?

The FACT is all are killing the body... one just happens to be a 'legal' and 'accepted' practice.

That's drawing the issue in pure black/white... this is the 'legal' and 'accepted' practice of [killing, murder, suicide].

This is not a 'do not resucitate' order, where the body IS dying and you're letting it go. This is not a 'the machine is doing the breathing for me'. These can be framed as "Leaving it in God's hands", and since he's the ultimate arbitrer in that frame...

This is a decision to ACT and through those actions [kill, murder].

----

So from that perspective, I very much understand the 'other side'.

Their framing of the 'act' is different, and is defined differently.

----

There is also cause for doubt, there is no written testament only Michael's word of a 'remembered' conversation that seemed to be an 'aside'.

Then there is the counter-evidence of the parents saying 'devout Catholic'.

Suicide is THEEEE 'automatic hell penalty'... no do-overs, no second chances, it is the act of giving up and rejecting God.

If it had JUST been the parents, and they were willing to devote the rest of their lives to the body of their daughter, would you argue that for 'Terri's' sake we should still starve her?

---

All in and all, I can only imagine one worse situation that this one.

Ready for it.

A child born in the same state as Terri and one parent wants to medically starve while the other parent does not.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Huckleman2000]

Is there a difference between medical-starvation, six bullets, or a lethal dose of morphine?

The FACT is all are killing the body... one just happens to be a 'legal' and 'accepted' practice.

That's drawing the issue in pure black/white... this is the 'legal' and 'accepted' practice of [killing, murder, suicide].

This is not a 'do not resucitate' order, where the body IS dying and you're letting it go. This is not a 'the machine is doing the breathing for me'. These can be framed as "Leaving it in God's hands", and since he's the ultimate arbitrer in that frame...

This is a decision to ACT and through those actions [kill, murder].

The point is, you shouldn't put legal and accepted into quotes, and shouldn't call it killing, murder, or suicide. There are legal definitions of killing, murder, and suicide, just as there are legalities outlining everything in this case.

I would argue, and I think there is a lot of legalese on my side, that there is a difference between "killing" and "letting die". True, the outcome is the same in either case, but there are good reasons for not treating them the same in a legal sense.

Take your instance of 'leaving it in God's hands'. Had Terri Schiavo been born in the 1800's, without feeding tube technology, she would be long since passed on. Does that imply that, merely by not being born after feeding-tube technology was developed, all caregivers heretofore have been murderers?

If technology changes morality, how do we know what is moral and what is not? What if artificially maintaining life turns out to be as evil as suicide, ie, artificially inducing death? And thwarting the wishes of the Creator for persons to die is a sin?

We don't know.

Walking into the room and putting 6 bullets through Terri Schiavo's heart kills her, without a doubt. If you have faith that God doesn't want her to die, then withholding maintainance care still allows the possibility of a miracle.

There is still the possibility of a miracle. I think the absence of one pretty much absolves anyone of murder.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Colleen, you're framing the 'disconnect' from the left perspective... let's frame it from the 'religious' one. (I'm Catholic though a bit of an odd one, but I have devout fascination with all things Christian.)

Let's say that Michael Schiavo walked into the hospital room and put six bullets into Terri Schiavo's heart. I'll stipulate ALL doctors have said 'no cognitive function; no chance of recovery'.

Did he just commit murder?
Did he just kill her?

-- Small break into the secular
Should he be charged with any crime? (He has valid firearms permit for his gun.)

Now, a lot of people would say "Yes, he killed her." or "Yes, he murdered her.", less would probably say "Charge him with murder!"

Is there a difference between medical-starvation, six bullets, or a lethal dose of morphine?

The FACT is all are killing the body... one just happens to be a 'legal' and 'accepted' practice.

That's drawing the issue in pure black/white... this is the 'legal' and 'accepted' practice of [killing, murder, suicide].

This is not a 'do not resucitate' order, where the body IS dying and you're letting it go. This is not a 'the machine is doing the breathing for me'. These can be framed as "Leaving it in God's hands", and since he's the ultimate arbitrer in that frame...

This is a decision to ACT and through those actions [kill, murder].

----

So from that perspective, I very much understand the 'other side'.

Their framing of the 'act' is different, and is defined differently.

----

There is also cause for doubt, there is no written testament only Michael's word of a 'remembered' conversation that seemed to be an 'aside'.

Then there is the counter-evidence of the parents saying 'devout Catholic'.

Suicide is THEEEE 'automatic hell penalty'... no do-overs, no second chances, it is the act of giving up and rejecting God.

If it had JUST been the parents, and they were willing to devote the rest of their lives to the body of their daughter, would you argue that for 'Terri's' sake we should still starve her?

---

All in and all, I can only imagine one worse situation that this one.

Ready for it.

A child born in the same state as Terri and one parent wants to medically starve while the other parent does not.

Sincerely,
ElSol

In all my life, I've never been accused by anyone of having a left perspective. Granted a few ultra conservatives have accused me of not having a right enough perspective, but even Amicus dosen't accuse me of being a leftist.

I phrased my observation in value neutral terms, neither demonizing those who wish to end life, nor lauding those who wish to extend it.

Religious, does not mean right. It does not mean conservative. It means religious and if you are framing it from a religious point of view, then you have eschewed any pretense of objectivity as you have applied a value set to the discussion that is implicit if not stated.

I'm not prepared to enter a values debate, if I were, I would not have been as careful as I have to not put forward my opinion. In your gun case, yes, he should be charged with a crime. The degree of that crime, I can't say, but at the very least, he was taking the law into his own hands and should expect the full weight of the justice system to respond to that affront. I tend to believe he would be charged with murder. In a criminal case, the rules of evidence are different than a civil or family law case. Within the criminal code, even if she were on her way towards death, as long as she is breathing she would be considered alive I believe. Just as administering the coup de grace to an intruder you had mortally wounded would still get you a murder charge most likely. Mortaly wounding him would be self defense, putting a bullet in his head after he was down and no longer a threat, would, most likely invalidate your defense, even if the original wound was mortal.

In the case of evidence, there are two sworn affidavits from witnesess who said they heard Teri say she did not wish to live under circumstances similar to those she is in now. It should be noted, in fairness, that through 19 judges and six courts, no one was ever able to discredit those witnesses, nor were they ever driven to recant under cross examination. I point this out, not to say the witnesess are above reproach, merely to say the war cry of he has no evidence is faulty. He has presented evidence beyond his own word in the matter. While those affidavits can be attacked, they have yet to be shown to be in any way perjured in the eyes of the law.

The religious argument you present holds no sway in the courts, and well it should not. Cannon law, cannot trump secular law, at least it cannot in any nation that is not a theocracy. If the argument is framed in terms of the law, I feel comfortable speaking. I have studied the law to a degree and while obviously not an expert, I understand a lot of the intricacies of law. If you are going to frame it in religious/moral/ethical terms, I feel less free to speak. My ethics are my own. My religion is my own. My morality is my own. I don't presume to elevate any of the three to the status of law. Nor do I presume to argue any of the three with someone who dosen't share them, as that is a hopeless argument.

I made a value neutral observation, an observation I believe is valid enough to entertain debate, if not to stand on its own merit. Gauche's reply, would seem to indicate I made an erroneous observation, perhaps over generalizing. If you intend to take it and insert religious principal into it, it ceases to be worth debate. It is no longer value neutral and frankly, I'm not an ethichist or theologian.

 

[CharleyH]

I do not quite understand why death is looked upon as such a horrid thing, particularly among those who profess a belief in heaven. Is to be forced to stay in this life any more humane an act?

 

[Black Tulip]

I have been following the discussion on this thread, even if I ceased to post.
Living in the land everybody else regards as free-for-all in killing the diseased and elderly rolleyes: not) I find it interesting to read all responses. We have legislation that condones euthanasia to some extent.

Like Colly said, moral judgement or religious opinions are a matter of personal conviction and I agree with her they should not come into a decision that affects all, regardless of personal views.
So far I have always found her a staunch debater, precise and courteous and I would welcome her wholeheartedly in "my" leftish corner. LOL
It will never happen!
But I love her.

Imp,

I have been reading your continued plea to withhold action with growing interest. If, as you say, it is so unclear what Terry wants, then why is there no court ruling to find that out?

 

[rgraham666]

Death, Charley, is the great unknown to North Americans. The thing 'not spoken of'.

It's similar to the Victorian's unwillingness to face sexuality. it was something hidden, not faced, and resulted in some rather twisted people. It's no surprise that some great porn came out of Victorian England.

So it is with death. It's an unknown in our lives. Even those we love, when ill, are kept away from us. We don't see much of them, don't get to watch them slip away, or see their pain as they struggle to stay alive. Death among North Americans is like sex among the Victorians. It's not integrated into our lives. We know little of it and so fear it.

That, I believe is why so much of our media is so violent. Since death to us is a horrid thing, we associate with another horrid thing, violence. And it's why our monsters are killers. Freddy, Jason, Leatherface, Hannibal Lecter, are the avatars of death. We fear and are horrified by them.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I have been following the discussion on this thread, even if I ceased to post.
Living in the land everybody else regards as free-for-all in killing the diseased and elderly rolleyes: not) I find it interesting to read all responses. We have legislation that condones euthanasia to some extent.

Like Colly said, moral judgement or religious opinions are a matter of personal conviction and I agree with her they should not come into a decision that affects all, regardless of personal views.
So far I have always found her a staunch debater, precise and courteous and I would welcome her wholeheartedly in "my" leftish corner. LOL
It will never happen!
But I love her.

Imp,

I have been reading your continued plea to withhold action with growing interest. If, as you say, it is so unclear what Terry wants, then why is there no court ruling to find that out?

I think I can answer that for you BT. It has to do with the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state. The diagnosis, while subject to precise parameters, is, in essence, completely subjective. Doctors do not make the diagnosis based on symptoms, but on what they infer from the symptoms. There is no solid, 100% sure way to know if Teri, or anyone in PVS, has any cognitive function.

Thus far, the courts have appointed 18 specialists, all have returned the dignosis PVS. 2 doctors chosen by the parents dispute that diagnosis and one doctor, appointed by the executive branch of the state also disputes it.

The courts are constrained to go with the diagnosis of PVS. The traditional wisdom in the case of such diagnosis is that no recovery is possible.

A woman in a coma 20 years suddenly came out of it. A man in a state similar to PVS, called minimally cognitive state, also suddenly came out of it recently. In both cases, doctors gave zero chance for recovery. While they are baffled, the two cases do tend to suggest the medical community isn't ALWAYS right about brain damage. Imps argument rests on the premise if they aren't always right, then there is hope, in death, there is no hope.

A second consideration is the sheer pace of medical advancement. Who is to say in ten years we won't be able to replace the damaged tissue in someone's brain with vat grown brain matter and give people a new lease on life?

Imp also argues, that there are existant therapies that haven't been tried in the case of Teri Schavio.

The courts, however, are constrained by other considerations. They cannot legitimately deprive the husband of his right a guardian on the hope she might get better at some point in the future. In a point of precedent, they can't really ignore the preponderance of medical opinion in the matter. To do so would set the precedent that expert medical opinion isn't valid in a court of law. Finally, perhaps most important to the courts, the Schindlers have failed to prove ANY of their accusations, points or arguments while in court.

As an example, the Schindler's lawyer, in the most recent motion, compared taking Teri off the feeding tube to murder. The judge, stopped him and said, in essense, that is the emotional rhetoric of this case. This court cannot and will not be moved by such.

The Schinler's case, as far as law goes, is very weak. They aren't the patient's guardians. They have not proven any reason why the current guardian should be stripped of his guardianship. They can offer no proof Teri wished to remain in a vegetative state. They can't prove her due process was denied. They can't prove she has a chance of recovery, beyond the miracle kind.

None of what they cannot prove in court, invalidates the opinions held by Imp and those against removing the tube. The courts, will not enter into a reversal of their role and argue against the Schindler's claims, but will instead demand they prove those claims. Thus far they have not proven any of them, to the satisfaction of a state or federal judge.

Basically, the primary arguments for keeping her alive are arguments of hope, faith and morality.

Those for letting her die by her husband's wishes are the ones that have legal weight behind them.

While I do not doubt that many of the judges would love to rule for the parents and Err to the side of life as the president put it, they can't. To do so, in defiance of the law, would be to rule against the body of law that has developed in such situations. It would also set the precedent, that judges can ignore the law they are sworn to interpret, if the law seems to contravene their own concience. That would mean an end to the rule of law.

Kind of wordy, but I hope it explains why the courts are seemingly inhuman and show no pity in cases like this.

 

[gauchecritic]

Which then begs the question of how, by law and every definition of law, innocent people are executed in prison. Ok it may not happen often, but it does happen.

I question the husbands right to (ok emotive language) kill his wife, when there is someone wiling to take the responsiblity of her care. He can't really argue that she is suffering by being kept alive can he?

 

[Black Tulip]

If it's true they have been talking about her not wanting to live on in such a state of indignity, there would be suffering.
He from being unable to grant her her last wish and she from severe loss of dignity.

I know I'm glad I was able to keep my promises to loved ones in that respect. They were very clear in their wishes to what was acceptable to them, but not always able to voice it when the moment was there.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Which then begs the question of how, by law and every definition of law, innocent people are executed in prison. Ok it may not happen often, but it does happen.

I question the husbands right to (ok emotive language) kill his wife, when there is someone wiling to take the responsiblity of her care. He can't really argue that she is suffering by being kept alive can he?

If I were to enter into an emotive debate with you it could get out of hand fast. And would prove nothing but the fact we both hold an opinion.

The question before the courts though is two fold. Can they legitiately remove his legal guardianship and pass Teri to someone else? Can they rule that she has no right to die?

In the first case, if you rule to strip the husband of guardianship, you effectively rule that no spouse has Primature in the affairs of an incapacitated spouse. Obviously, if you rule that way, you open the path to destruction of the institution and to millions of lawsuits by people seeking guardianship over incapacitated relatives. The law is pretty specific, when you marry, in most states, your spouse automatically becomes your guardian if you are incpacitated, they become, by law, your next of kin. In the abscence of a will, they inherit all your worldly possessions. If there is an insurance policy, unless you stipulate otherwise, your spouse is usually defacto beneficiary. Guardianship can be removed with cause, but the family has yet to establish cause. It is my understanding negligence or abuse are the most common, if not the only acceptable reasons for removal. If you remove it at whim, then the above standards are called into question.

If you rule, that her being alive harms no one, then you ignore what the courts have been convinced was her stated desire, to die. You are further saying, no one has the right to die, as long as someone is willing to take care of them.

The courts here, are constrained, not to just rule as it affects Teri Schiavo. They have to consider how their ruling fits with existing law, case law and precedence, as well as how this ruling will affect future case law & precedence.

In a moralistic debate, I think your case is quite strong, if you are convinced she never expresed her desire not to be kept alive artificially. In a legalistic sense, your argument, as the parents are finding out, is battling against obstacles that seem nearly insumountable. As the federal judge noted, pointedly, emotive appeals and moralistic rhetoric can have no effect on the court. If you look very closely, without those emotive appeals, without that moralistic rhetoric, the parent's case is very thin.

For them to win, the courts must make a stunning departure and declare a legal guardian can be removed by his spouse's parents request. Or they must decide, that immennt death is the only leaglly acceptable means by which a person can claim a right to die. I do not think any of the courts involved wish to make such a sweeping change to the body of the law and are not convinced it would hold up on appeal if they did. They are sticking to the very simple legal expedient for issuing an emergency injunction, that is, you must prove you stand a substntial likelyhood of winning your case on the merits of that case. Thus far, no judge has seen anything in the arguments that present a substantial chance of winning.

While so much is being made of this, the tuth is, the court appeals aren't for a new trial, they aren't for review of the evidence, they are demanding an emergency injunction to stay the decision of a lower court, a court that has already heard the case to finality. Such a request will succeed only once in a blue moon and then only in extraordinary circumstances. Either compelling new evidence, such as DNA. A new or current case that has redefined case law. Or proof that a person's FEDERALLY mandated rights have been ignored or abused in the state court.

 

[CharleyH]

I question the husbands right to (ok emotive language) kill his wife, when there is someone wiling to take the responsiblity of her care. He can't really argue that she is suffering by being kept alive can he?

Again, I will state, if they can't determine she isn't suffering, then they can't determine that she is, therefore the parents argument holds as much validity as his. The only difference is that he and other witnesses have stated that it was HER wish (I think I read in one of Colly's posts) and the parents seem more to wish for themselves, at what appears to be (with witnesses in mind) at the expense of her wishes.

 

[cloudy]

If there is an insurance policy, unless you stipulate otherwise, your spouse is usually defacto beneficiary.

They're even stricter than that when it comes to life insurance. If you don't specify your spouse as one of the beneficiaries on your policy, i.e. you specify that your two children are to get all of the benefit paid at your death, you are required to have a notarized statement from your spouse on file with the insurance company stating that he is aware that he's not a beneficiary, and that s/he is okay with that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Again, I will state, if they can't determine she isn't suffering, then they can't determine that she is, therefore the parents argument holds as much validity as his. The only difference is that he and other witnesses have stated that it was HER wish (I think I read in one of Colly's posts) and the parents seem more to wish for themselves, at what appears to be (with witnesses in mind) at the expense of her wishes.

Legally, the parent's argument does not hold as much validity. It cannot hold as much validity. If it does, then there is no power granted to a legal guardian. It's really that simple. He is the guardian, they are not. If you give them euqal say, you strip him of his guardianship without them proving cause to do so.

Morally, ethically, I think most parents want to feel they love and have the best intersts of their child at heart to an equal, if not greater degree than a spouse. In the sense of a moral or ethical argument, i would be inclined to agree that a parent's concern is every bit as great.

But the argument before the courts isn't moral or ethical, it's legal and they must preserve the rule of law or else fail in their sworn task as judges.

 

[CharleyH]

Legally, the parent's argument does not hold as much validity. It cannot hold as much validity. If it does, then there is no power granted to a legal guardian. It's really that simple.

Yes, and loops back around to the earlier question of marriage, and government involvment and implications there from. I agree, and you are making very good arguments, btw, which I am following, like BT, with interest.