Text 11487, 74 rader
Skriven 2005-04-14 06:09:41 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11471 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
14 Apr 05 00:48, Ed Connell wrote to John Hull:

 EC> Hey, John.

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

 EC>>> And if she did change her mind without telling anyone?

 JH>> Come on, Ed.  Have to agree with Earl here.  Formality has nothing 
 JH>> to do with it.  If you had expressed your opinion on a subject (or 
 JH>> your wishes concerning something) on numerous occasions to a number 
 JH>> of different people, any reasonable person would conclude that 
 JH>> your opinion was pretty well set (or that your wish was firm).

 EC> Legal events are formal.  That is why those who testify must 
 EC> promise to tell the truth.  That is why certain issues are allowed and 
 EC> others not.  Form and law go hand in hand.  If a law is not formal enough 
 EC> it will be thrown out as too vague.  Pretty well set doesn't get it for me

 EC> when it comes to killing someone.

Telling the truth is a given in ANY court, regardless of the subject matter,
civil or criminal.  It doesn't change the reality of what someone says or does
as I outlined above.
 
 JH>>   *I* would certainly take it that way.  Now, many of us have also
 JH>> written our wishes down as a backup, just in case.  But that in no 
 JH>> way lessens the validity of what we said verbally on many 
 JH>> occasions, and I would expect the courts to honor that, 
 JH>> particularly if there were several first hand witnesses to attest 
 JH>> to that fact.

 EC> I'm sorry, but I just don't approve of killing anyone on the basis 
 EC> of such informal conversation.

What's informal about it?  You have to remember here that most people don't
know that they should write certain things down and in some cases even have
then notarized.  You can't get any more formal than that to use your definition
of formal, yet sometimes even that is not enough.  The case of Anna Nicole
Smith is a good example.  She married some old bird who was rich as sin, and he
had his will changed, leaving most of his estate to her.  The old man's 60 year
old son has been trying ever since to keep her from getting ANY of the money. 
How much more formal can you get than a legally made will?

Sorry, but someone's word should carry as much or more weight than some
document, especially if there are witnesses who verify that word.  It used to
be that way.  An agreement was sealed with a handshake, and both parties kept
their word because it was not only the right thing to do, it was the moral
thing to do.

I fully agree that Schiavo may not have realized that her wishes would entail
starving, but that isn't the point here.  She expressed a wish that should be
honored under the law, period.  AFTER this case, there is no reason to expect
that anyone doesn't know how these things happen, so they have no recourse to
complain about the method, but they still have the right to request it just as
she did.

Like I said before, if people find this too distasteful to allow, then the law
must be amended by the appropriate state legislature.  But the bottom line is
that the law is the law, and must be followed, regardless of our personal
wishes or likes or dislikes.  There are a hell of a lot of laws I don't like,
and I try to get those changed to the best of my ability, but I have to live
with them in the meantime.  So does everybody else.

John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)