Text 11417, 70 rader
Skriven 2005-04-12 22:20:03 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11351 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, EARL.

 EC> -> You believe that she had in mind when she said those words that they
 EC> would -> be legally binding.  I'd hate to be legally bound by each idea
 EC> that I -> expressed.

 EC> You CANNOT be legally "bound" by ANY expression of your wishes.

Okay.

 EC> You can change your mind at any time.

Okay

 EC> If you say "when I die, I want
 EC> to be cremated," how in the world can that possibly be legally binding
 EC> ON YOU?

Please explain the difference between that and using a person's words to 
someone as permission to kill them by giving them no food and no water.

 EC> And if you say it on twenty different occasions to several
 EC> different people, you can still change your mind and say "no, on second
 EC> thought I'd like to be buried in Waco and NOT cremated."

Oh, so you are bound to the extent that you don't tell someone you have 
changed your mind?

 EC> That is why there are a number of states that make provisions for oral
 EC> declarations in the matter of ones last will and testament, as well as
 EC> in living wills.  If your will says one thing, but just before you die
 EC> you make a clear declaration (while you are in your right mind, not
 EC> being threatened or pressured by anyone, and in front of witnesses, of
 EC> course) to change it, the written will can be thrown out in court.
 EC> Same with living wills, whether oral or written.  There still has to be
 EC> clear and convincing evidence of your intent, but a recent oral
 EC> declaration can override a written document.

The issue is the formality of the declaration.  A casual remark - even if 
emphatic - doesn't make it formal.

 EC> Schiavo's intent was pretty clear.

So some say.

 EC> Take one of the examples. Michael's grandmother is hospitalized and
 EC> seriously ill in 1988.  She leaves a specific, written "do not
 EC> resusitate" order.  Doctors try to resusitate her anyway, which should
 EC> have constituted battery.  She makes it very clear that Michael is not
 EC> to allow such a thing to happen to her, that he is not to leave her
 EC> there, that he is not to keep her alive by artificial means.

Okay, but that does not include starving her to death.

 EC> That is not an issue at all, for people who don't care what her
 EC> preference was.  I've run across several editorials that say exactly
 EC> what the parents said: they feel that the feeding tube shouldn't have
 EC> been pulled even if it was in VIOLATION of her clear wishes.

That is neither here nor there in our discussion.

 EC> But for people who DO care what her preference was, it should take
 EC> something more than "MAYBE she changed her mind completely some time
 EC> between 1988 and 1990 and just didn't TELL anyone" to justify violating
 EC> her wishes.

And if she did change her mind without telling anyone?

--- Fidolook Lite FTN stub 
 * Origin: Procrastinate NOW, don't put it off for tomorro (1:379/1.6)