Forums | MacLife

everlong205 wrote:

Unless he is lying about what Terri said to him becuase he wants OUT. Or because he in fact caused the injury that put her tehre in the first place. Other than his say so, where' the proof that he's trying to fulfill his wife's last wish. Tell me please. Where's teh documentation, the will, the tape recording, anything.

The documentation is called their marriage license.
You aren't married are you.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gradient wrote:

bratboy wrote:

It does?

Well, if it couldn't, then they'd only need to unplug her, not starve her to death.

She needs a feeding tube, if I'm not mistaken.

Really, she needs food and water?

How bizarre.

gradient wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

gradient wrote:

Well, if it couldn't, then they'd only need to unplug her, not starve her to death.

She needs a feeding tube, if I'm not mistaken.

Really, she needs food and water?

How bizarre.

That's a feeding tube, not a bottle, and it is bizarre.

Farmerkev wrote:

everlong205 wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

The documentation is called their marriage license.
You aren't married are you.

No I'm not. But htat is not the documentation that in fact Terri wanted to be killed were she in such a situation. There is no evidence, other than his say so that in fact these are her wishes.
ANd again, he's already moved on to a new gf, and a new family and on with his life. As such why doesn't he absolve himself of any remaining responsibilty concerning her and allow her family who are still bound to Terri to take care of her?

If she produced a living will that stated what her intentions and desires were then I can see the point from the husbands perspective. But she didn't. I then have to wonder if he isn't merely saying what he says she said becuase he has a new gf, a new family and wants to get on with his life without having to deal with what he views as a vegetable draining his finances.
In other words, he has every incentive to lie and say that those were her intentions becuase it benefits him.

But as he has a new gf and a new family already, why is he clinging to this so called dying declaration of his wife that he cant prove she made? Since he's already moved on in all other ways why not simply renounce his claim on what shoudl be done for Terri. And her family who have not moved on don't want her to be killed. they are willing to assume responsibility.

Yes, they screwed up not having a living will (which her parents could still contest and isn't legally binding)
Quite frankly, things like this weren't needed until right to lifer types that couldn't mind their own business started trying to impose their moral codes on others.
Lastly, you don't need proof of her intentions. The state doesn't either.

that's a crock. You don't know what Terris' wishes were. There is no proof that the husband is acting out of some notion of love for Terri as opposed to a desire to save his own ass and kill off his wife who is a burden to him. So, sorry it is the states business becuase THERE IS NO LVING WILL. And as there isn't we have to look at the parties involved. One has moved on with his life, gotten a new gf and a new family and one wants to take care of the daughter. Why doesn't the husband simply renounce his rights and leave it to the family just as he moved on with his life and got a new family?

Last edited by everlong205 (2005-02-22 6:20 pm)

Your burden of proof is smurfed up everlong.  The husband doesn't have to prove that he is acting as his wife would want.  Because they have a valid marriage license, its assumed that he would best know what his wife would want.  He doesn't have to prove a damn thing.

oatmeal wrote:

obtuse wrote:

Your burden of proof is smurfed up everlong.  The husband doesn't have to prove that he is acting as his wife would want.  Because they have a valid marriage license, its assumed that he would best know what his wife would want.  He doesn't have to prove a damn thing.

Shouldn't.  Shouldn't have to prove a damn thing.

True.  This all would be different if a criminal case were proceeding against Mr Schiavo for the attempted murder of terri, as some of the wacko sites out there claim there should be.  But obviously there's no entanglement like that now.  Just the legal standard that spouses have a medical power of attorney.



On a related note, for any gay couples out there, if you haven't bothered to go get a power of attorney before, you really should.  Its really depressing how many gay couples get shut out because of the lack of that form.

Her body is not being kept alive artificially.

All bodies require food and water.

gradient wrote:

Her body is not being kept alive artificially.

All bodies require food and water.

The AMA has worked it out that feeding tubes and whatnot count as medical care that can ethically be withdrawn.  And moreover, the choice to continue this sort of situation should be up to the husband, even if you don't agree with that choice.

obtuse wrote:

gradient wrote:

Her body is not being kept alive artificially.

All bodies require food and water.

The AMA has worked it out that feeding tubes and whatnot count as medical care that can ethically be withdrawn.  And moreover, the choice to continue this sort of situation should be up to the husband, even if you don't agree with that choice.

Medical care can be ethically withdrawn?

Are you suggesting that is it completely moral to kill someone simply because they require a feeding tube?

gradient wrote:

obtuse wrote:

gradient wrote:

Her body is not being kept alive artificially.

All bodies require food and water.

The AMA has worked it out that feeding tubes and whatnot count as medical care that can ethically be withdrawn.  And moreover, the choice to continue this sort of situation should be up to the husband, even if you don't agree with that choice.

Medical care can be ethically withdrawn?

Are you suggesting that is it completely moral to kill someone simply because they require a feeding tube?

She's brain dead, no higher functions. She does not have the brain function a new born has,
There is no someone there to kill.

Farmerkev wrote:

obtuse wrote:

gradient wrote:

Medical care can be ethically withdrawn?

Are you suggesting that is it completely moral to kill someone simply because they require a feeding tube?

Yes, if that is the person's wish.

You're going to get into an assisted suicide discussion if you let them frame the terms.

Assisted suicide is an action taken to end life rather than a refraining from action which is withdrawal of care.  But ultimately they are the same basic question, that of does someone have the final say over his/her body.

Farmerkev wrote:

gradient wrote:

obtuse wrote:

The AMA has worked it out that feeding tubes and whatnot count as medical care that can ethically be withdrawn.  And moreover, the choice to continue this sort of situation should be up to the husband, even if you don't agree with that choice.

Medical care can be ethically withdrawn?

Are you suggesting that is it completely moral to kill someone simply because they require a feeding tube?

She's brain dead, no higher functions. She does not have the brain function a new born has,
There is no someone there to kill.

That's exactly it..

obtuse wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

obtuse wrote:

Assisted suicide is an action taken to end life rather than a refraining from action which is withdrawal of care.  But ultimately they are the same basic question, that of does someone have the final say over his/her body.

And it's twin, mind your own business.
Might as well call in XYZ, this works on the gay issue too.
Call the pot folks too.

Speaking of which, can I take humor in the fact that many of these people are the ones who complain about redefining marriage?

Not really, they have their opposite numbers on the 'other side' that also try and impose their moral codes on others.