What sucks about this all is that for me, if I were in a commatose state of mind yet I could still see and hear my wife and daughters faces and voices, I WOULD want to live. Every moment would be cherished even they wouldn't even know it.
Inside I may be screaming yet on the outside they couldn't even tell if I acknowledged them and it would be so painful not being able to let them know.
I think my wife would hang on depending on how my daughters felt. If they wanted to keep their daddy alive I think she'd do it.
I hate to burst your theory, but he's already turned down many offers including one of $10 million. So how is it about money?Actually it is not...the offer (1 mil I believe)....was less than the insurance money (3 mil+) he would pocket.....this tells me it is almost all about the $$$$.
Last night, I was firmly in the husbands corner after hearing that her best friend and others confirmed what he is saying.
Those affidavits are weird, but they are also far fetched
I think at this point, it's going to take a lot to make me not believe the guy. I think he's doing what she would have wanted.
I have not heard anything about that amount....do you have a link.....this still doesn't change my mind about the basic opinion that he is still not true to her....he cheated on her and has 2 kids with his mistress....I still feel he is insincere.
I still think something should be done for her benefit...if not it would set a horrible precedent.
I am not familiar with this acronym....fill me in Manny.
Long Time No See
I think to say that he cheated on her is unfair. He moved on, he wanted a life and I think that's fair.
I think congress and Bush are setting a horrible precedent.
Let me ask you three questions, Manny? That's all they are, just questions...
1. Does "interpreting the law" include the power to levy taxes?
2. Does "interpreting the law" including re-writing portions of a law to meet judicial "requirements"?
3. Does "interpreting the law" include setting schedules for state legislatures and withholding state funds from agencies?
I present these three questions as generic and somewhat rhetorical, but all three apply specifically to actual court cases. So answer carefully.
Definetly my spouse. When you get married, you take on the responsibility of your spouse's well being in just this situation. Her husband says that it is her wish not to go on like this. What right does anyone else have to go against that? If it were my wife, I would have told her parents and anybody else to off. My wife would do the same for me. Is there any physical evidence? no. There doesn't have to be. The spouse should have the final say. The way this has be politicized by lawmakers and others is disgusting. It just another way for politicians and people with agendas to get in front of a camer. Also, not to sound cruel but my tax dollars should not go to bring Congress in on emergency session for one person. If the Nation as a whole is in danger, yes, but not for one person.For those married in here..who would you want to have the final say?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT
Mar 21, 11:23 PM EST
Bush laws in Schiavo case, Texas at odds
By KELLEY SHANNON
Associated Press Writer
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- The federal law President Bush signed to prolong Terri Schiavo's life in Florida appears to conflict with a Texas law he signed as governor, attorneys familiar with the legislation said Monday.
The 1999 Advance Directives Act in Texas allows for a patient's surrogate to make end-of-life decisions and spells out how to proceed if a hospital or other health provider disagrees with a decision to maintain or halt life-sustaining treatment.
If a doctor refuses to honor a decision, the case goes before a medical committee. If the committee agrees with the doctor, the guardian or surrogate has 10 days to agree or seek treatment elsewhere.
Thomas Mayo, an associate law professor at Southern Methodist University who helped draft the Texas law, said that if the Schiavo case had happened in Texas, her husband would have been her surrogate decision-maker. Because both he and her doctors were in agreement, life support would have been discontinued.
The Texas law does not include a provision for dealing with conflicts among family members who disagree with the surrogate decision-maker - as has happened in the Schiavo case - although in practice hospital ethics committees would try to resolve such disputes, he said.
The Texas law, Mayo said, tends to keep such cases out of court, allowing life-support decisions to be made privately. However, within the last month two Houston cases went to court. One case resulted in a baby being removed from life support; he died soon afterward. The other led to the transfer of an elderly man to a nursing home.
Bruce Howell, a private health law attorney in Dallas who was involved in updates to the state law in 2003, agreed with Mayo that Bush's signing of the federal law appears to be inconsistent with his actions as governor.
"These are incredibly private decisions," Howell said. "I would hope that this case does not result in federal law overriding what I think was carefully and incredibly well intentionally thought out."
The White House said Monday the law allowing a federal court to intervene in the Schiavo case was narrowly tailored and not intended as a precedent for Congress to step into such battles.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed the claim that Bush's signature on the Texas law conflicts with his action Monday. "The legislation he signed is consistent with his views," McClellan said.
---
Associated Press writer David Pace in Washington contributed to this report.
© 2005 The Associated Press.
Travis, will you just provide the damn examples already?
You see? You can't debate...only denigrate what you don't agree with. And no listening involved.
Why can't you just answer the damn questions?
1. Kansas City School Integration. Judge ordered tax levy to fund magnet schools.
2. Gore v. Bush. Florida Supreme Court attempted to re-write election laws mid-stream (in re. counting procedures, deadline dates)
3. Aftermath of Edgewood v. Kirby. Judge Scott McCown set legislative deadlines for passage of what became the "Robin Hood", and threatened to withhold state funds for schools if those dates were not met.
Three examples.
Travis, debates involve the posting of questions, not grandstanding. Don't give me this crap, I asked you to post the information so I could make up my mind
Now, I'm going to read each one of those rulings and find out the justification for the rulings. Then I'll comment.
Quit being a jackass.
Any links would also proove helpful
I posted three questions, and I tried to do it calmly and logically, in order to present my point. No "grandstanding", just questions. You were the one who couldn't answer questions.
Don't be putting the blame on me. I did exactly what you wanted. You couldn't handle it.
Quite being an asshole.
Websters defines condescending as.....
Anyhow, any links?
Those were cases I recalled from earlier reading, so I don't have the links. That's why I gave the case names. McCown's name somehow I remembered.
I might be able to find the KC tax case name...
So not shouting is now defined as condescending? Fine. I know how to treat you from now on. you.
You can start here for the KC tax case
http://www.umkc.edu/whmckc/Collections/IKC250C.HTM
Thats the only one I should need, I have links for the other ones, I'll post on this later.
Congress has no place in this case.
The Florida Courts have already sided with the husband on a vote of I believe 7-0 and of those 7 judges, 4 were appointed by Jeb Bush.
All right, Manny...I'll wait for your word.
And seriously...I was not grandstanding nor being condescending. I'm truly sorry if you felt that way, but it really offended me to be accused of such.
What money are we talking about here? There simply is no life insurance money, but like anything the right-wing opposes, there is much disinformation. Terry and her husband won a medical malpractice suit and Terry was awarded about 1.5~million dollars to care for her medical expenses. Money that her husband cannot touch which to date
has been spent for its intended purpose. Her husband was awarded about $350,000, much of which he used to put himself through nursing school so he could care for his ailing wife. For 4 years he made the life of nurses at the hospital Terry was receiving care a living nightmare, so much so that they considered getting a restraining order because they felt they were paying so much attention to Terry they were neglecting the rest of their patients.
Despite being immobile for over 15 years, Terry Shiavo has never had bed sores - a testiment to her husbands loving care. Yes, after years of sacrafice and the harsh realization that his wife would never awaken from her permenant vegatative state, he moved on with his life, as most of us probably would.
fair enough travis.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
