I agree that this is a valid concern. However, this right is not absolute, nor should it be. The fact that she is married does not obviate her civil rights, my friend. If we had a signed piece of paper saying that Micahel speaks for me if need be, we would not be having this discussion. If she were able to speak for herself we would not need to have this discussion.
What we have is a woman who can't speak for herself and a man acting as her guardian who does not appear to be acting in her best interest, as manifested by a failure to obtain basic diagnostic tests or physical therapy. It richly deserves to be questioned. To approach the question from another direction, I am guardian for two children. In many respects what I say goes when it comes to their health care. I can get their teeth cleaned, fail to get their teeth cleaned, sign them in and out of hospitals and even have them incarcerated. But if my actions do not appear to a reasonable person to be promoting their best interests, I have to answer for that. I may find myself no longer their guardian or incarcerated myself :) I do understand what you are saying, I think. As a matter of fact I am a major advocate of leaving families alone. But due to this case I find myself needing to add, if they are functioning as a family should. Why should this woman's parents have to go get affidavits from 33 doctors to say that she should be diagnosed according to best medical practices? Shouldn't that be understood? Wouldn't you think? In 99 cases out of a hundred a wife or husband would be the best person to ask about a person's thinking about end of life issues. I still think this may the hundredth. I'd love to find out that this is not the case, because I don't find this case to be comfortable. I am agreeing with Ann Coulter and the Cato Institute for crying out loud :) I'm getting emails suggesting I am a luddite or an embittered man-hating conspiracy theorist. But when I ask people who have these definite opinions about how hopeless her case is direct questions about exactly how they know this it all fades off to mumbles. It's just something that everyone knows, like everyone knows that Saddam Hussein is responsible for 9/11 and Al Gore didn't help create the internet. And what can I say, I try not to subscribe to that sort of urban myth. Sorry. Now if you have some real evidence to show me, I am all ears. Dana On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 21:10:35 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > So, issue #1. When does it become a crime to give a woman with brain > > damage something to drink? And most of all, *why*? > > > > To me here's the key fact: she's married! So the primary question is, > when a married spouse cannot speak for his/herself who should? > > You seem to be arguing that outsiders, should they disagree with the > spouse's decision, should be able to override that decision. What > that really means is that there are no marital rights - you're > advocating some type of state mandated decison body. > > So, who in the state? Senators? Judges? An agency? > > Those are the questions. Either we say the spouse has the final say > or we don't. > > I would agree that we need to make sure the spouse is of sound mind, > but if that's determined to be true, then what? Do you still advocate > revocation of rights if the decisions don't mesh with yours? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Purchase Studio MX with Flash Pro from House of Fusion, a Macromedia Authorized Affiliate and support the CF community. http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=51 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:151003 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
