Quote:
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I thought this discussion was started over at Lawyers With Kids, so I replied to your query there, but I'll cross post b/c this seems like a better forum for the discussion. Here's a good summary of the case to date. It includes links to the court holdings so far, in case you want to read up on the exact findings by the courts.
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/infopage.html
I think her husband has carried the fight for guardianship on out of an honest belief that this is what she would have wanted. That takes a lot of courage when there are people out there ready to vilify him for his own personal life and his beliefs. He's lived a long time with this.
|
Yes, I posted first on LWK b/c I was thinking of it in terms of a parent's fight for the life of and/or guardianship over their child. I agree, it's a better place here to talk about it. I guess I am less apt than Replaced Texan to leave alone a court ruling where there has not been a specific living will and also it is unclear what people mean when they say they don't want to be kept alive by artificial means. If I break the bones in all my body, I'd expect the drink of water to be brought to me even though I can't reach it myself even if though someone else's fetching might be "artificial." I am not comfortable with people (even judges, those extra smart people I'm sure) interpreting what someone's comments meant in the context of the law. Especially where it seems most people make these statements thinking breathing and heart pumping machines, not a tube with liquids.
