Text 11419, 70 rader
Skriven 2005-04-12 22:47:26 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
  Kommentar till text 11327 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
Hey, John.

 EC>> Did these witnesses have an insight into her heart of hearts and
 EC>> what she
 EC>> wanted to happen?  And more importantly, did she then live with
 EC>> the
 EC>> understanding that she was bound by these words as reported by the
 EC>> witnesses?  I not, then if she did not feel the same the next day,
 EC>> did she
 EC>> know that she must go to each of these persons and tell them that
 EC>> she had
 EC>> changed her mind.  In the case of a written will, this much is
 EC>> obvious.  One
 EC>> knows that it exists and what is necessary to change it.

 EC>>> How would one ascertain those wishes after Feb. 1990, OTHER than
 EC>>> by looking at what she said repeatedly when she was capable of
 EC>>> having and expressing wishes?

 EC>> Good question - but that does not say that she no longer had a
 EC>> wish.

 EC>>> ->  EC>  But the objection you are outlining would apply to any
 EC>>> ->  EC> living
 EC>>> will, ->  EC> including written ones.

 EC>>> -> True.  At least a written will is done on purpose with the
 EC>>> -> intent
 EC>>> that it -> will speak for you at some subsequent date.  If one
 EC>>> that it -> changes one's mind, one -> can modify the words on the
 EC>>> paper too and one knows where and what to -> change.  Her comments
 EC>>> to these third parties were considered binding by her, -> do you
 EC>>> think?

 EC>>> If there had been a single witness who had testified that she had
 EC>>> changed her mind or that she had expressed contradictory views on
 EC>>> other occasions, that would have drastically influenced the
 EC>>> outcome.

 EC>> Did she realize that she was legally bound and that it was
 EC>> necessary to take
 EC>> specific steps to avoid her being killed?


 EC>> I think we formally write important things down and that best
 EC>> shows the
 EC>> intentions of the individual.  Short of that, it is just a
 EC>> guestimate.  As
 EC>> you said, it was a difficult decision for the judge.  That right
 EC>> there
 EC>> should tell you something.

 JH> You're forgetting two big things here.  One, Michael was legally
 JH> responsible for her, not her parents.

I don't think anyone should have the legal authority to kill another.

 JH> Two, the part of her brain that is necessary for cognition,
 JH> personality, intelligence - all those things that together were Terri
 JH> Schiavo - no longer were present. There is ample proof of that.

I'm not so sure as you are.  I've heard conflicting testimony, some from 
folks with no dog in this fight.  The fact that the judge would not allow 
any pictures, sounds like he was hiding something.  Granted that she was 
damaged.  The question is, what then?  The fact is, she did not die a 
natural death.  She was killed.


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