Posted: 3/21/2005 6:09:46 PM EDT
|
The recent uproar over the Schiavo case made me think of GW's actions in the past: The Texas Futile Care Act was signed into law by Governor George W. Bush in 1999. Check out Section 166.046, Subsection (e): If the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient is requesting life-sustaining treatment that the attending physician has decided and the review process has affirmed is inappropriate treatment, the patient shall be given available life-sustaining treatment pending transfer under Subsection (d). The patient is responsible for any costs incurred in transferring the patient to another facility. The physician and the health care facility are not obligated to provide life-sustaining treatment after the 10th day after the written decision required under Subsection (b) is provided to the patient or the person responsible for the health care decisions of the patient. So its not ok for a husband to decide it, but its perfectly ok for a 3rd party (who often has to make financial justifications to administration) to make that decision here is the result: www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3094699 A Friendswood man in a persistent vegetative state was transferred to a nursing home in San Antonio on Sunday, ending a battle between St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital and his family over whether to take him off life support. ADVERTISEMENT At 7:30 a.m., Spiro Nikolouzos, 68, was hooked up to a portable ventilator, feeding tube and other support lines and taken by ambulance to Avalon Place, which had rejected his application just nine days before. Facility officials confirmed his arrival about 11:30 a.m. Sunday. "Thank God that was an ambulance taking Spiro to another health care facility, not another car taking him to a funeral home," said Nikolouzos' wife, Jannette. "I can't tell you the relief and excitement I feel that my husband is still alive." Dr. David Pate, St. Luke's chief medical officer, said he was "very surprised" Avalon Place agreed to take Spiro Nikolouzos — more than 30 facilities had rejected him — but that he is glad the matter has been resolved to the family's satisfaction. The hospital's ethics committee had argued continued care would be futile and inhumane. The surprise relocation capped three weeks during which the Nikolouzos family and St. Luke's looked for an alternative facility to accept him and the family's lawyer filed one temporary restraining order after another to prevent the hospital from pulling the plug. Nine days ago, one of those orders was granted just a few hours before St. Luke's planned to act. Avalon Place officials would not explain their change of heart Sunday, but Pate and family members said they understood that someone from Avalon Place's corporate headquarters intervened late Friday to give permission. The Nikolouzos matter and another involving a 6-month-old baby, whose mother last week failed to stop Texas Children's Hospital from withdrawing life support, shone a light on a fairly new Texas law that allows hospitals to discontinue such care 10 days after notifying family members. Mario Caballero, the plaintiffs' lawyer in both cases, complained 10 days is too little time to respond to such notification and an appellate court justice who ruled in the Nikolouzos case urged the Legislature to revisit it, saying it ``creates confusion where there should be clarity.'' The Nikolouzos controversy dates to March 1, when St. Luke's gave the Nikolouzos family notice it planned to take him off a ventilator and remove his feeding tube. Five days later, the family's lawyer, Mario Caballero, announced he would ask a judge to stop the hospital. Nikolouzos, a retired electrical engineer who suffered brain damage in a motor vehicle accident more than a decade ago, has been in a persistent vegetative state since at least 2001, Pate said. Until Feb. 10, his wife took care of him at their home, feeding him through a tube inserted through his side into his stomach. But when the area around the tube began bleeding, he was rushed to the hospital, where his condition seriously deteriorated and he was placed on a ventilator. Jannette Nikolouzos acknowledged at one point last week that "he was never like this" before. Pate, able to talk about the case for the first time Sunday, said the case was particularly hard on staff because there was no possibility Nikolouzos would ever improve, even with around-the-clock care. Nikolouzos' serious complications include constant infections and ulcers that penetrate all the way to bone, and muscle atrophy that has left him rigidly curled up in a fetal position. Pate said it is hard to believe that hospital hygiene efforts necessary to prevent infection don't physically hurt the patient. "He's unaware of his surroundings, he can't eat, he can't speak, he can't move any of his extremities," Pate said. "I can't imagine anybody in his condition wanting extraordinary means of life support to be kept alive." Nikolouzos' adult son, also named Spiro, acknowledging "mixed feelings'' Sunday, said it was hard seeing his father like that. But he added that he was glad his father hasn't passed away yet and reiterated that "a hospital shouldn't be able to tell you when it's going to euthanize your family members.'' Jannette Nikolouzos also expressed happiness that "Spiro got out of that execution chamber that is St. Luke's." Pate said payment for Nikolouzos' care was never an issue for St. Luke's, contrary to claims by the Nikolouzos family. Payment for Nikolouzos' care at Avalon Place was thought to be an issue; Caballero said in court a week ago that the San Antonio nursing home turned down Nikolouzos because his Medicare was about to be reduced. No one could answer Sunday whether that matter has been resolved. Nikolouzos' wife and son, who plan to visit him today, said they don't know what the future will bring, beyond regular trips to San Antonio. But they said it is preferable to the alternative. "We're just thankful to anyone who helped my husband stay alive," said Jannette Nikolouzos. |
Big difference - the parents are willing to take over custody and financial responsiblity. In addition, do we really have a medical finding that she isn't viable? It's debatable |
|
Have to ask the question does anybody want to live like that??? Now please understand i'm very much prolife, and against doctor assisted suicide. but would anyone of us want to live like that????? Does the Federal government have the right to get involed? this is raising allot of question? 
|
|
Two entirely different issues. The Texas statute is an alternative to the noxious communist-style principle that you (as an incapacitated person) have the right to compel other people who have no relationship to you to pay thousands of dollars a day to support you indefinitely even when doing so appears to be futile. The Schiavo case does not appear to involve compelling anyone who lacks an independent obligation to the incapacitated person to provide care. Hell, I can't figure out why "incapacitated" and "futile" are requirements for ejection. I am trying to figure out the legitimate basis for forcing strangers to take care of you. It seems to me that regardless of your condition, if you aren't making financial arrangements I find satisfactory, I should have the right to give you ten days to find another sucker or die on the curb. |
| I hate to say it but if that were my daughter -judges, doctors, nurses, husbands aside - it would be a cold day in hell before I let anybody starve her to death. Shit like this are what living wills are for. I would respect her wishes if she had a Living Will, but if she didn't it would take more than a judge with an ink pen to starve her out. |
Impartial court appointed doctors have stated their opinion in the Schiavo case. All of those doctors are in agreement. Which has nothing to do with the fact that a law signed by GWB allows a hospital to refuse treatment to keep a patient in a psv alive. The same man who is helping to prevent a family member from exercising his legal right to make medical decisions for his spouse. If a husband is not allowed to make the decision, why should any physician be allowed to make it? Its an inconsistent stance, no matter how others will try to justify it. |
I think a good arguement for spousal abandonment could be made. The dude took the settlement money, hooked up with a chicky snack, knocked her up and popped out a couple of kids and lives with his new family. Frankly, I'm amazed he didn't take the $10 million offer and move on. That has me a bit perplexed. There are nurses stating that he wanted her dead, wanted the money, etc... |
There are also nurses who state the exact opposite and say the parents are the ones looking for a payday. /shrug You can look at it one of 2 ways 1) he really is the devil incarnate some people would make him out to be. He knows if he accepts the money he will be seen for what he truly is so he did not. 2) he really is exactly what he claims to be: A man trying to see the wishes of his wife are carried out, regardless of the personal cost to him or his new family. It would definitely be easier to just sell out. He has his own money from the settlement, her money is almost gone (to pay lawyers unfortunately), and it would allow him to get on with his life. My initial impression was #2 and I have never seen anything to make me feel any different. |
Your gonna ask how any one would want to live like that and then come back to him with a "How do you know" that is a pretty weak case you just made, kind of made your whole point invalid and you made it that way your self. 
|
My only question, why has he refused to divorce her many years ago, but he still finds it okay to have children with another woman? Shows what kind of person he is right there 
|
I think they both suck, but dehydration has the benefit of being quicker. Also that not exactly what is going to happen. As her discomfort level increases they hospice will provide more and more drugs to compensate. The drugs will be as much the cause of her death as the dehydration. This happens every day in hopsices all over the country. As long as the drugs are given to reduce pain, they don't consider it euthenasia. |
You are equating a restaurant's "obligation" to serve a customer with a parent's or spouse's obligation to feed a child or dependent spouse. A restaurant can stop putting food in front of your retarded and helpless wife, even if you walked off and left her there a week ago. You are still obligated to feed her. There is no inconsistency - unless you take the position that a parent or spouse has only the same obligation as has a corporate entity offering services to the public. |
as far as the new woman: 1) common sense: she is never coming back and he was still a young man when all this went down. He was also encourage to move on by her parents when they still all agreed on the treatment. Even after the disagreements started, they still encouraged him to get on with his life (as a letter from them to the husband recently posted by ETH shows) as far as not divorcing her: 1) self interest if he starts divorce proceedings a new guardian would be appointed, most probably the parents. He would open himself up to losing half of everything he owns (including his personal insurance settlement and anything he and his future wife have built together over the years). He has a new family to look out for that is probably figuring into his decision. 2) honoring his wifes memory if he divorces her then he loses any method to make sure her wishes are followed. Its only as her husband that he is able to ensure this. Her husband is far from an angel, but that doesn't make him the devil others would like to brand him as. He is faced with a very difficult choice and imo is doing the best that can be done with a really shitty situation. |
Lmao "tell death do us part" is all I have to say, so honor has nothing to do with it, and he should have just got a dam divorce since he didn't take his vow seriously 
|
Did you reply to the wrong poster? Neither he nor I made that assertion. The Texas law signed by GWB DOES seem an awful lot like that, now that you mention it. A hospital is not a restaurant. Letting a hospital treat a patient in the same manner as a restaurant would seem to be against the very spirit of compassion so many are calling on to get Terri's feeding tube reinserted. I am saying that GWB's support of the Texas law is in direct opposition to his stance in the Schiavo case. Its kind of surprising to me in that this is the first real instance where I have seen him take a mutually contradictory stances on similar issues. Especially if you look at the issues from the perspective of who is allowed to say "stop treating" a patient. |
|
Tsk, tsk, tsk. Now, for the THIRD time, allow me to post a Houston Chronical (I believe they were the only major newspaper in Texas that endorsed John Kerry for President the last go around) regarding the law that then-Governor Bush signed into law in 1999: Schiavo case differs from 2 situations in Houston Texas' 1999 statute wouldn't resolve such a dispute in Florida By DINA CAPPIELLO Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle Terri Schiavo's medical condition and her family's disagreement over whether to continue treatment make her case distinct from recent ones in Houston, where an infant was taken off life support and a woman had her severely brain-damaged husband moved from a local hospital to keep him alive, legal and ethics experts said Sunday. In 1999, Texas became the first state to legally require an ethics panel to resolve disputes over when to end life support. That law recently led a state judge to allow a local hospital to discontinue infant Sun Hudson's life support, despite his mother's wishes. The law gave another family time to move Spiro Nikolouzos, a 68-year-old who cannot breathe on his own, from St. Luke's Episcopal Hospital to a facility in San Antonio that will keep him alive. But the law, signed by then-Gov. George Bush, would do little to help Terri Schiavo, the Florida woman whose feeding tube could be reinserted if federal legislation takes effect as expected today. In Texas, hospital ethics committees can decline treatment only when it would be futile. Schiavo's condition would not be considered futile under the Texas law, experts say. And that law would not apply to the dispute between Schiavo's husband and guardian and her parents over whether she wanted to live or die, the subject of numerous Florida court battles. How laws differ The Texas law "allows doctors to stop treatment when ... treating is not going to help at all," said John A. Robertson, the Vinson and Elkins chair at the University of Texas School of Law in Austin and author of The Rights of the Critically Ill. "In Florida, the feeding tube will keep Terri alive, so it is not medically futile in that treatment won't work at all." Nikolouzos' brain damage, on the other hand, is so severe he cannot breathe on his own or move, according to Dr. David Pate, St. Luke's chief medical officer. Over his wife's objections, the hospital's ethics committee decided to remove his breathing tube, setting in motion the 10-day period in which his family could move him to another hospital under the 1999 law. A judge extended that period as the family tried to find another facility. "On a scale of 1 to 10 — 10 being the worst-case vegetative state — Nikolouzos is a 10," said Pate. He did not venture to rate Schiavo's condition. But experts and former lawmakers said the Schiavo case is complicated by another matter: Her husband says she had told him she would not want to live in such a condition, but her parents dispute that. It is this issue that has been argued in Florida courts since 1993. The Florida dilemma While Texas has a provision giving family members the right to decide whether life support should continue if a patient is incapable of making a choice, it would not necessarily have resolved the Schiavo dilemma. "What drove the legislation was the people in the medical profession that do that kind of work, who specifically wanted to avoid what we have going on in Florida," said former state Rep. Glenn Lewis, who sponsored legislation in 1999 listing, in order, those who would have the right to make the life-ending decision. He said he got the idea from his brother, a physician who specializes in geriatrics. Although the legislation didn't pass, Lewis said it probably wouldn't have resolved a controversy such as exists in Florida. "In her case, you have people that love her disagreeing," Lewis said. "Who is the family? Does the husband trump the parents?" Chronicle reporter Todd Ackerman contributed to this report. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3094518 This legislation strikes a nice balance, IMHO. With that said, I would urge you all to execute 'Directives to Physicians' or 'Living Wills' as soon as is practical. Eric The(AvoidingTheRush)Hun 
|
if her parents had any respect for her or his rights as a husband, she would have been dead years ago and your sense of morality wouldn't have to be bothered so. Personally, I don't believe he is the devil incarnate. I don't think he's an angel either, but I do think all the reason I mentioned above apply in the case. Personally, at this point you would have to add hatred of her greedy fucking parents if it were me. The fact that he hasn't taken the easy road (which you admit confuses you) speaks VOLUMES to me. Whatever his other faults (and they may be legion), I think he is motivated primarily by the desire to see her wishes carried out. I'm much more cynical. The lump of flesh is not Terri to me and her parents unseemly fascination with the corpse of their daughter isn't going to hurt her in the least. I would have given in years ago just to get on with my life. |
Saying "they're contradictory" doesn't establish that they are contradictory. You have to demonstrate that by showing that there are irreconcilably inconsistent elements in the two positions. You can't do it. The hospital law relieves a hospital of the obligation to provide to individuals services it has determined to be useless. In effect, it provides hospitals with limited protection against involuntary provision of services. The simple fact that a patient's guardian demands certain services does not obligate the hospital to provide those services. The position with respect to the Schiavo case (which is wrong for many reasons, but not inconsistent with the hospital law) is based exclusively on the obligations of an incapacitated person's spouse, who has preexisting legal and moral obligations to promote the other party's welfare even absent any incapacity. The two issues are entirely unrelated. The restaurant analogy is an apt one. Here's another: the fact that a mechanic is not obligated to charge you 5 times the value of your car for a futile effort to stop it from burning oil, and the fact that you will be ticketed and fined for fogging the road with oil smoke, do not represent inconsistent approaches to smoky automobiles, because the obligations of motoristrs and mechanics are entirely dissimilar. You may rest assured that your local prosecuting attorney will give you a quick lesson on the difference between the two issues if a hospital decides to invoke its rights under the statute, and you take your hopeless, helpless old granny and lay her in the median on I-10 to die. A guardian's obligation to care for a ward IS NOT legally or morally coterminous with a hospital's obligation to provide medical care. |
|
ETH, I wasn't saying the law did apply. I simply pointed out that GWB is ok with allowing a hospital to determine whether a loved one should have treatment, but apparently doesn't like a husband (who has the legal right to do so) from doing the every same thing. I find it even more compelling because the motive for not treating is often money, which is the accusation laid against her husband. Its an inconsistency any way you want to look at it, although I'm sure you'll try and twist it as you usually do. Enjoy! |
See if you can get past the "'cause I said so" stage of argument, OK? Saying that a third party need not provide services to an individual to whom it has no preexisting obligation and with whom it has no special relationship - that one party to a business transaction can withdraw from the transaction when it chooses to do so - is not inconsistent with maintaining that a parent or spouse must provide food and water to a child or spouse. Now, either explain with precision the inconsistency, or say plainly "The positions are inconsistent because I say they are inconsistent, and I can't explain it beyond that," OK? You're getting tiresome. |
Quoted:
Well, regularly humping and impregnating the lovely and gracious Jody Centonze must NOT be too helluva road to take! But she is certainly not the only one. One of his earliest post-Terri-injury girlfriends was a young lady named Cindy Shook, who, regrettably, had to obtain a restraining order to protect herself.... "In late 1991, 1½ years after Terri’s collapse, Michael Schiavo became involved in an intimate relationship with Cindy Shook. The romance continued for approximately one year. It can be documented that the two spent a weekend at the Don Caesar hotel in St. Petersburg Beach and they also contacted a Century 21 Realtor on the premise of purchasing a home. "In May of 1992, at the apex of the romance, Schiavo had Terri’s 2 pet cats euthanized to clear the way for his moving in with Cindy and her pet dog. "In the summer of 1992, Schiavo moved into his parent’s home. We can speculate with reasonable accuracy, it was at the instructions of his attorney, since the living arrangement would be contrary to Schiavo’s 'loving husband' image they were projecting for the upcoming November 1992 malpractice trial. "In April 2001, Cindy Shook (married name Brasher) was interviewed by an investigator working in Terri’s behalf. Unwilling to come forward because of her immense fear of Schiavo, Cindy had to be subpoenaed and was then subsequently deposed on May 8, 2001 to try and learn more regarding her intimate knowledge of Michael Schiavo’s character traits. "Excerpts; May 8, 2001 Deposition: "Cindy Shook describing Schiavo’s possessiveness. "he’s very jealous. He stalked me at my…at where I worked after I stopped dating…when he would get mad at me he would tell me, 'I would rather be laying in bed in the nursing home with her than with you.' I mean he can be the most incredibly mean person" "When asked if she were afraid that Michael would physically harm her or if he would harm children. "I am concerned about retaliation because I have a child -I have children and a husband. I know him, I know what he told me I said he could be a very mean person." "She spoke of how Schiavo stalked her for close to a year after the breakup and that she received repeated phone calls. "'He came on the floor looking for me several times. I felt it was out of character for him to get a job as an orderly at the hospital That was concerning to me.' When he would come up to the floor looking for her she was not scared the first time but later was scared. "'In town I would look up when I was driving…not at my work' - she would look up in the rear view mirror and there would be Michael Schiavo. 'I would look up and he would be behind me in traffic.' It continued for several months after he didn’t work at the hospital. She would change lanes, try to make a turn and he would do the same. He did this about ten times. "'One time he was behind me in traffic he got next to me in a two-lane going the same way, and he changed lanes basically right on top of where I was at, and I had to swerve not to be hit. I had to swerve off the road. Michael ran me off the road. I considered it as stalking, dangerous and guessed potentially life threatening.' "Cindy thought about getting a restraining order. She talked to an off duty police officer in her building "They discussed marriage. She said Schiavo asked what would you do if I asked you to marry me. He never discussed getting a divorce. "Cindy said Schiavo got angry when asked questions about Terri saying: "'this had destroyed his life and he was being robed of a normal life.' Regarding Terri’s care, according to Cindy Shook, Michael Schiavo said, "'How the hell should I know we never spoke about this, my God I was only 25 years old. How the hell should I know? We were young. We never spoke of this.' "THEY NEVER SPOKE OF THIS! Yet now Michael claims that Terri's wish was to die of starvation and dehydration, and the infamous Judge George Greer rubber stamps it. Why?" From: http://hyscience.typepad.com/hyscience/2005/02/michael_schiavo_1.html
'Wishes' that he first claimed she made in 1998 and the time when he sought to have her feeding tube removed! Talk about great timing!
Whatever. Eric The(JustLikeMichaelGotOnWithHisLife)Hun
|
try quoting what I wrote in its entirety instead of picking one part that has nothing to do with the argument itself I am discussing who has the right to determine whether treatment should continue. This law allows hospitals (in many cases for profit businesses) to make the decision. Personally I have no problem with the decision for similar reasons to the ones you keep posting. But then I have no problem with a husband exercising his legal right either. To claim the moral high ground in the Schiavo case while supporting the law that allows a for profit corporation to make the same decisions is questionable at best. The Schiavo case has NOTHING to do with the right or wrong of having her killed. It has always been about who has the legal right to make that decision. In my view ( and the view of the law), the husband has that right. GWB thinks the husband should not have that right, but signed a law giving a business that right. |
Quoted:
Baloney! There is a vast difference between having a husband given the right, and THIS husband given the right.
Under certain limited situations, which are reviewed by a medical panel....and are much higher than Florida's standards, it appears. (See Houston Chronicle article above) Eric The(Pro-Life,Always)Hun
|
Your the one that is getting tiresome. Especially after you chose to quote the section that had nothign to do with why I find them inconsistent. Your objection is even more ludicrous because your entire argument boils down to "I don't find them to be inconsistent" and "here's a totally unrelated point" The really funny part is I happen to agree on the unrelated point, but it doesn't prevent me from seeing the inconsistency in someone who supports the law that gives a corporate entity the right to decline treatment and doesn't support a husband's right to decline treatment. Once again I support the Texas law and I support the legal principle that a husband has the legal right to make medical decisions for his wife. |
Hehe so now your upset he didn't try to kill her sooner? Perhaps thats because he was too busy trying therapy the first 4 years and seeing no improvement and it took another 4 to come to grips with the decisions to let her die.
I bow before the superior power of your cognitive abilities. Whatever indeed. Although if the husband had a change of heart and let her go for similar reasons you and others on this board would be trumpeting your victory for days. |
There. I quoted the whole thing. The problem isn't that you're misquoted; it's that you don't know what you're talking about. Under the hospital law, a hospital DOES NOT decide whether treatment will continue. A given hospital merely decides whether it will provide treatment. The patient's guardian is free to obtain treatment at another hospital or at a nursing home, or to treat and maintain the patient himself. The hospital's decision DOES NOT terminate treatment or prohibit anyone from providing treatment. A guardian's order that medicine, food and water be withheld DOES decide whether treatment will continue. Under the rulings in effect, the hospital or nursing home where Schiavo is located CANNOT give her food or water. Her parents CANNOT give her food or water. NO ONE can give her food or water. You are under the misapprehension that the situations are comparable and that favoring the hospital law while interfering with Schiavo's husband's decision is inconsistent. This is because you mistakenly believe that a hospital's decision that it will not provide treatment is the same as a guardian's decision that no one will be permitted to provide treatment. I think the hospital law is a good one. I think federal interference in the Schiavo proves that supposed conservatives in the national legislature are sunshine constitutionalists and not to be trusted. They have jettisoned important constitutional principles because their constituents have howled about the outcome of a particular case which is leagues outside federal jurisdiction. Rely upon them to do likewise when they think that abandoning the 2d Amendment will buy them votes. |
Quoted:
Well, read that article again. The hospital cannot just willy-nilly cut off the treatment of someone unable to pay, but only in certain limited circumstances that MUST be approved in advance by an impartial panel. Nothing wrong with that!
I support the right of the husband to make this decision, as well, unless there are sound legal reasons to believe that his decision may be clouded by extraneous interests. Apparently, Michael Schiavo did not wait long to find Terri's replacement, BUT didn't seek a divorce in 1991 because he had a lawsuit he had to win, and winning it big required that he pretend to be the 'grieving widower'! He won his lawsuit in which he got a large sum of money, and $500,000.00 was placed in an account for Terri's 'future medical expenses.' Instead, the Judge handling this case permitted Michael to withdraw large amounts from that 'future medical expenses' fund with which to pay his attorneys beginning in 1998, when he sought to remove Terri's feeding tube. In effect, Terri's funds were providing for her own...petard. How ironic, IF it wasn't so incredibly tragic! Nope, In this situation we need a 'disinterested' person to serve as Terri's guardian al litem, and allow him or her to make such a terminal decision on her behalf. Eric The(PlainSpoken)Hun
|
You've said that some unspecified portion of some of your posts isn't the part where you find them inconsistent. You still haven't pointed out an inconsistency. Anywhere. Are you going to explain what is inconsistent about the positions, or will you quote yourself from an ammo thread for more examples of things that don't refer to the supposed inconsistency? |
No they are often not the same, if you can find another provider willing to care for them. If you can't they are effectively the same. I probably just have less faith in our medical/insurance system and the way that patient needs can play second fiddle to the corporate bottom line. That man in the article was hours away from death due to an administrative decision, not the wishes of his family. That scares me, and I support the law. I just thinkt he potential for abuse is great. Much greater than the potential for a dishonest husband to abuse his authority. If you can't see the similarity, then we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm not under any sort of misapprehesion though, I just have a less rosy view of humanity than most.
On that much we agree. |
hehe liked the use of petard :P Its not often you can work an allusion like that in Just wanted to comment that she has had at least two Guardians that I know of. |
Quoted:
Yes, one of them being Judge Greer himself! With that precedent, I would hesitate to think about who the other might be. Michael's girlfriend's father? Well, I think we've reached a point where we can all agree on one thing: Texas laws are better than Florida's on this subject! Eric The(YeeeHaaawww!)Hun
|
*sigh* if the other posts haven't spelled it out for you, I'm not sure what to say. The law allows a corporate entity to stop treatment on a person. It doesn't require them to wait until alternate care has been located, it only requires they give written notice and ten days later they can turn out the lights. Only legal action stopped them from ending the life of the man in the article. One could say "they didn't kill him or prevent treatment, they just stopped treating him at THEIR place of business" but I doubt that is going to be any comfort to someone whose loved one dies when medical help would have allowed them to continue to live. Its the very same problem with allowing a husband's rights to override the parent's rights. Personally I have no problem with the law. I do see a problem with saying a corporate entity can make that decision, but a husband cannot. I see a lot more potential for abuse with that law, than the legal principle that a husband has the right to make medical decisions for his wife. In both of these specific cases, family members chose to use the courts to achieve their goals. The family in Houston was successful. The family in Florida so far has not been successful. We'll have to wait and see how the dog and pony show in congress plays out. The problem with the .gov interfering in a family matter is that if a new precedent is set, we are all going to have to live with the repercussions. Like I said in my earlier reply, we may just have to disagree on the inconsistency. I see and so do a lot of other people, its not like I am the first to say it. I just happen to see the problem with having both views. |
that would make 3 at least then First guardian ad litem was John H. Pecarek. He stated that Michael Schiavo has acted appropriately and attentively toward Terri Schiavo. The second guardian ad litem was Richard Pearse, Esq. His report stated Terri was in a PVS with no chance of recovery. He did say that financial considerations might be playing a part in her husband's decision to stop care though. Do you have a link that shows proof he was acting in that capacity? btw I thought you might find this interesting as a lawyer and a Christian, its the testimony of a Catholic Priest about the case. www.miami.edu/ethics2/schiavo/Testimony%20of%20Father%20Gerard%20Murphy.doc Its an interesting read. eta: I'm off to bed. Thanks for the replies. |