Gruss Gruss Gruss. Why should it be his call? He was supposed to file a guardianship plan and did not. Really, this conversation has gone beyond repetitive. Let me summarize.
a -IF Terri Schiavo did indeed express a wish not to be kept alive in some PVS-like state, and b - IF this wish was truthfully reported by Michael Schiavo, and c- IF Terry Schiavo was in fact PVS as opposed to in some curable condition THEN I think everyone in this conversation would agree that the story has a happy albeit overly delayed ending. If Terri Shiavo said she did not want to be on life support, in my opinion there is a grey area where normally the judgement of the guardian would apply, because she was not on life support. Whether in fact there was any medical hope for her would also matter, and again, normally the judgement of the guardian, in consultation with her doctors, would be the key point as to whether treatment should be withheld. If a and b were not true but c were true the judgement of the guardian as to what the patient would have wanted is probably the best guide available. Except where the judgement of the guardian is in question. This is my opinion and (I believe) Sam's too. If you cannot trust the integrity of the guardian then there are all sorts of considerations as to civil rights. What I would really like to see, actually, is a good legal explanation of why the allegations of abuse being allowed by Judge Greer were ruled on by Judge Greer. Bottom line, you believe him, and I don't. I don't think discussion is going to change this. Dana On Apr 8, 2005 4:42 PM, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Sam wrote: > > It's not that easy. If he allowed the physical therapy that the the > > doctor ordered then she might be able to swallow food. If so he'd have > > had no way to legally murder her. > > > > But, as guardian, the therapy is his call! > > You are micro-managing in the worst possible way. Either you agree > with guardian authorized medical decisions or you don't. > > If you do then there's a question of competance and motivation. If > the guardian is both competant and there's no proof of nefarious > motives, then it's his call. > > In this case the courts found Mr. Schiavo competent and of proper > motive. If you think he wasn't, and can prove it, do so. I'm > guessing his parents have already tried that, though. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153279 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=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
