Text 11351, 43 rader
Skriven 2005-04-11 17:56:58 av EARL CROASMUN (1:275/311)
     Kommentar till en text av ED CONNELL
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
->  JH> Actually, yes, it does constitute a declaration of one's wishes.

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

You CANNOT be legally "bound" by ANY expression of your wishes.  You can
change your mind at any time.  If you say "when I die, I want to be
cremated," how in the world can that possibly be legally binding ON YOU?
And if you say it on twenty different occasions to several different
people, you can still change your mind and say "no, on second thought
I'd like to be buried in Waco and NOT cremated."

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

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

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

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

--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
 * Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)