Text 10944, 72 rader
Skriven 2005-04-02 20:38:00 av VERN HUMPHREY (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av EARL CROASMUN
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
EC>-> A "wish" based on the memory of casual conversations by friends of the
EC>-> man who wanted to end her life.
EC>-> Let us hope no one of us is condemned to death on such flimsy evidence!

EC>Language is such an amazing tool.  Subtle selections of words can do so
EC>much.  In this case you want to overlook the unrefuted testimony, under
EC>oath, of three different people.  That leads you to dismiss the
EC>conversations they were testifying about, by calling them "casual."

What "unrefuted?"  If you are dead and I testify to something you
supposedly said when only you and I were present, that would be
"unrefuted" would it not?  Even if it were a lie.

EC>Were they "casual?"  Is there some basis for that?

Did it give rise to any action on her part, such as making out a living
will?  It did not.

EC>Lets look at one of those conversations, as described in an article in
EC>the St Pete Times:

EC>" The funeral was over, and the Schiavo family had gathered at the Buck
EC>Hotel in Langhorne, Pa., for lunch.  Everyone sat around the table,
EC>lamenting how their grandmother had spent her last days. Doctors had
EC>kept her alive on a machine, against her wishes. On Scott Schiavo's left
EC>was his sister-in-law, Terri. Years later, he testified what the young,
EC>vibrant woman said to him that day in 1988: "If I ever go like that,
EC>just let me go," he recalled Terri saying. "Don't leave me there. I
EC>don't want to be kept alive on a machine.""

And that is equal to a living will?

EC>On what possible basis do you dismiss that conversation as being
EC>"casual?"

That it WAS, and did not result in her taking any action to make it
formal, and in writing.

EC>Here is another of the conversations:

EC>"During a train trip, Michael testified the couple talked about her sick
EC>grandmother. Terri said if she fell ill, she would not want to burden
EC>relatives. "If I ever have to be a burden to anybody, I don't want to
EC>live like that," she said, according to her husband."

EC>Do you really think she was "casual" when discussing the condition of
EC>her grandmother???

Yes.  She took no formal action as a result of that conversation.  And
did not make her wishes generally known.

EC>Another example of the 2000 testimony:

EC>"Joan was married to William Schiavo Jr., Michael's older brother, and
EC>was one of Terri's close friends. Joan testified they talked about the
EC>right-to-die issue repeatedly, as many as 12 times, because a friend had
EC>to remove her baby from a feeding tube."

EC>What kind of a heartless person must someone be, to engage in "casual"
EC>conversation over such a serious and emotional decision by a friend?

Don't get upset -- just explain why if it WASN'T a casual conversation,
it didn't result in a formal, written declaration.

Imagine some day in the future someone testifies that you said, "when I
go, I want you to have my house and all my savings."

Would that be considered adequate as a will?

Of course not!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)