Just remember that line from "Animal Farm": ........we're all equal.....but some of us are more equal than others.
the issue isn't if the parnets or the husband has say as to what is to happen to her. the whole thing is about her wishes. remember the husband didn't come forward with this wish of not to live like that for quite a few years after it happened, right around the time of the settlement. he made a statement on larry king about how he loved his wife and hes fighting for her, i guess that how he has kids for another woman which he lives with. from the video she understands some of the things going on around her, she follows people around the room with her eyes better than a drunk person could. the biggest problem is the only people saying she said that are her hisband, his sister and a friend from their side of the family.
I don't understand how you can just pick which family member makes this decision. Why should it be the husband? Is he really the closest relative? Apparently this guy didn't wait too long (Sean Hannity said only a few months) before he turned around and started his relationship with this other woman. I would bet that there's some other motive on his part. If people really don't wany to be kept alive artificially (which is a private choice), they need to print up an affidavit stating their intentions and get some witnesses to sign off on it. Otherwise, courts shouldn't get into this guessing game. BTW...I had the pleasure of hearing someone on the radio who actually recovered from a condition similar to the state that Terry is in. She said that it was the most horrible thing because she was aware of her surroundings, but unable to communicate. She said that she remembered the doctors pulling out the tube during her therapy and how painful it was, even though the doctors believed that she couldn't feel a thing. It really makes you wonder.
A thousand years of English Common Law and 200 years of Constitutional law say that a husband and wife are one person. In the absence of a living will, the husband speaks for the wife and is absolutely the closest relative by many centuries of legal decisions. Human life is very important, but so is the rule of law. The courts, all the way up to the US Supreme Court have spoken on this. Life and death decisions are made every day by families and their doctors. If there is a dispute within the family, as in the Schiavo case, then a judge decides based upon the law. This has been done and backed up by all the higher courts. This attempted interference of the governor, the Florida legislature, the US Senate, and the President (all republican controlled bodies), are blatant political moves to please the religious right, who have become annoyed at the administration's soft-peddling of their abortion agenda. This latest attempt by the US Senate to make this a federal issue instead of a state issue will only serve to send the case to the Supreme Court, where they will rule exactly the same as all of the other courts because the law is clear. The Republicans know this, of course. They are doing this to appear to be fighting for "Right to Life" issues to please some of their constituency. But as a consequence, they end up fighting against the rule of law. And for 15 years, a family's tragedy is lengthened and complicated by government interference. The Senate should leave this family alone! If I were the husband, I would have ended this long ago by divorcing the vegetative wife and allowing her parents to become her guardians. But who am I to tell this man how to run his family? He may very well be carrying out his wife's wishes, for he is surely determined. What happens when the parents die? Does his wife become his responsibility and emotional trauma again? It just ain't my business, nor is it the business of my government.
SabanFan, you better talk to your attorney...a will means absolutely NOTHING...all anyone (and I do mean anyone...family, friend, or otherwise) has to do upon your demise is to come up and claim that they have a share or claim to something left in your estate, and it goes to a probate judge... That judge makes up his OWN mind...and it doesn't have sh!t to do with your will. If he thinks that you were unreasonable or irrational or just plain being mean, he can decide to split or separate your assets and dole them out in whatever fashion he pleases... You need to set up a trust, and name yourself executor. Upon your death, name your attorney lifetime executor. Then bind the trust with rules that must be followed. As executor of the trust, he has no other choice-legal or otherwise-than to divide the assets of the trust according to the trusts' rules. The rules of the trust aren't up to being sued or protested. No one can bastardize your final wishes if you set up a living trust to be passed on to a trusted family member or attorney upon your death. A will means nothing...I've witnessed it firsthand...
I don't know what your personal experience was but it's apparent that you are the one that needed a lawyer. Or at least a good lawyer.
my great aunt and grandfather battled for years in court over inheritance money. it even made it to the state supreme court twice. i dont care what happens to my money after i am dead. i am dead and care about nothing. if i can be tricked into being satisifed with my will while i am alive, thats all i need. after thinking about the schaivo thing for longer, i still have no answer, and i am glad i an not a politician that has to decide anything.
I've studied most of this magical period you're talking about and have never come across any law/case/comment/drug induced babble that would indicate that a man and a woman are "one person" in any legal sense. A marriage is a legal relationship. It can be terminated quite easily. The relationship between parents and their kids is a legal relationship too, but it is a lot harder to terminate legally. I wonder which relationship the law tends to favor? What's even funnier about your statement is that during much of that time period you refer to was under the old "head and master" type rules.....the man spoke for the woman, but she couldn't speak for the man. So basically the man was the wife's "closest relative", but not vice versa. Is this the type of situation you are advocating?
Well, I haven't studied the period, your points may be valid. I was paraphrasing parts of a discussion collumnist George Will made on This Week last Sunday. If he is wrong, then by all means dissect his comments for us. That would interest me. I'll try to find you a link to the transcript.
The "one person" relationship is a biblical/spiritual/religious one. I don't know if I've seen any earthly law that attempts to enforce that.
