[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
How can you so completely discount the personal life of the husband in this instance when the sole reason he has any say in this is because of his marriage to teri (and legal rights thereof) yet for all intents and purposes his marriage ended many years ago and he is basically in a common-law marriage, with children, with another woman. It seems that in THIS case his personal life has nothing to do with the court decisions and that to me is the court deciding they don't want to take the whole of the matter in hand, like they do for almost every other decision they make.

The questions and answers have NOTHING to do with the husband's conduct. First, is Terri Schiavo in a persistent vegatative state, and second if the answer to that question is yes, does she have a testimony that directs her wishes as to how she should be treated if such a case occured. With the testiment absent, the court (as her Guardian) determines what her wishes about being kept alive would be.

As you know the review of her case has been on appeal and whether the case was adjudicated properly. There has been NO instance where the facts of the case were re-reviewed which is what the congress had asked for, the courts decided on their own to ignore that request.

You should do more research in the case, as there has been a review in Feb 2000; October 2002: December 2003 (Ad Litem report).

The Courts have followed the legal process and have acted to protect the integrity of the process, Congress overstepped the framework of our "Balance of Powers" by attempting to interject themselves into the proceedings.

And it IS his decisions about continuing with her feeding, he is the only reason she is being starved to death, because he is pushing for the state to kill her, all the while it seems refusing to let other tests to be run to prove without a shadow of a doubt.

The Court has ruled that it was HER decision. It has little to do with his wishes.

Again, you need to review the number of tests done. It is substantial. Some as recently as 2003.

Don't you have the least bit of issue with someone being put to death against the wishes of family members who have stepped up to provide her care after a CAT test 9 years ago or so was taken? Wouldn't you maybe want to re-vamp some of these tests in light of either new technology or just a double-check?

I would, judges don't think so I guess. Only in this case have I seen a court so unyielding when making an irreversible decision.

It isn't what her family members want, the question is what would She want, which is what the court's decision was made upon.