But in the absence of a written living will you would keep the person alive, despite what comments and wishes they verbally made known?
Michael asked a judge to decide Terri’s wishes. There was testimony and affadavits, and the judge ruled Terri would not want to be kept alive. Do you know her parents at one point said they knew Terri was in a PVS, and were willing to cut off her arms and legs if she developed gangrene to keep her alive, and that they would not withdraw the feeding tube even if they knew Terri would want it pulled?
In the absence of a living will, the judge did the next best thing, and I think they made the right decision.
First - Terri’s case is extreme and, hopefully, not representative of how must such situations would develop.
I do not agree with the judge’s finding that Terri’s wishes were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I wish the judge had decided differently.
I am not taking the position that a person be kept alive in the absence of a Living Will - but that when there is doubt about there wishes, that we do keep them alive.
If you think the preponderance of evidence proved Terri would not be kept alive - that is your perogative. I disagree.
Why? Why continue to feed factual information to someone whose only interest is making assertions about people she doesn’t know and events she obviously hasn’t bothered to research? You all keep throwing facts in her face, and as they hurl toward her face she closes her eyes and opens them later as if she’d never seen them. ww’s belief system does not include respect for facts.
And her respect for the sanctity of marriage only exists if she thinks you’ve adhered to her standards, not knowing the facts of the situation, just third hand biased information.
You’ve lied. You’ve spread misinformation. You’ve said things that are patently untrue. At least 10 of those have been documented in these two threads. How is that not bearing false witness?
You don’t even understand the judges’ (plural, not singular) decisions enough to disagree with them. Please give us a legal argument as to why the decision was incorrect – not your dumbfuck, misinformed religious opinion but an actual argument as to why the decision was LEGALLY incorrect.
You also need to get it into your empty skull that no one gives the slightest fuck what your opinions are. We just want you to stop LYING.
And I’ll say it one more time, you stupid cow. The phrase “beyond a reasonable doubt” applies to criminal convictions. The standard in this case was “clear and convincing evidence.” If you don’t even know what the decision WAS how can you presume to disagree with it?
You answer my questions from upthread anytime you feel like it, by the way.
You have made groundless accusations and insinuations against a man you know nothing about. That is bearing false witness. You have repeatedly lied about the evidence and been dishonest in your interactions with us. You have also shown a marked contemp for the mission of this message board. Your disingenuous pretense that you are being piled on for simply “disagreeing” with you isn’t fooling anyone. We know you’re full of shit and YOU know you’re full of shit so why keep it up?
And how is that any different than deciding not to believe the Schindler family?
All I have seen is repeated attacks by an insecure little clique who just cannot accept the fact that some people dare to disagree with the findings of Judge Greer. If that makes you upset, that is your little problem. Not mine.
I am not the one who started an attack thread, btw. What does that say about appreciation for this message board on the part of the person who started this thread and who jumped on board?
No, it is an opinion. Just as yours is an opinion.
The judge indicated the the relief of an emotional burden for the convenience of the family was a valid consideration. The fact the he referenced the family as a factor instead of just considering Terri’s wishes tips the hand of his agenda. If you wish to ignore this little insight then so be it.
In my experience, people who are so unwilling to accept differences of opinion on controversial topics do so because they are insecure and uninformed.
We are unrepentant in our ignorance. Clearly your best efforts have not made a dent. Perhaps you would be better served to leave us to stew in our bitter, mean-spirited, insecure stupidity, and spend your passionate and exceptional energy and unmatched wisdom somewhere where they might be more fully appreciated. Just a suggestion, wonderwench.