Text 11431, 95 rader
Skriven 2005-04-13 06:31:50 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
  Kommentar till text 11417 av Ed Connell (1:379/1.6)
Ärende: Re: Bo Gritz
====================
12 Apr 05 22:20, Ed Connell wrote to EARL CROASMUN:

 EC> Hey, EARL.

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

 EC>> You CANNOT be legally "bound" by ANY expression of your wishes.

 EC> Okay.

 EC>> You can change your mind at any time.

 EC> Okay

 EC>> If you say "when I die, I want
 EC>> to be cremated," how in the world can that possibly be legally 
 EC>> binding ON YOU?

 EC> Please explain the difference between that and using a person's 
 EC> words to 
 EC> someone as permission to kill them by giving them no food and no 
 EC> water.

 EC>> And if you say it on twenty different occasions to several
 EC>> different people, you can still change your mind and say "no, on 
 EC>> second thought I'd like to be buried in Waco and NOT cremated."

 EC> Oh, so you are bound to the extent that you don't tell someone you 
 EC> have 
 EC> changed your mind?

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

 EC> The issue is the formality of the declaration.  A casual remark - 
 EC> even if 
 EC> emphatic - doesn't make it formal.

 EC>> Schiavo's intent was pretty clear.

 EC> So some say.

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

 EC> Okay, but that does not include starving her to death.

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

 EC> That is neither here nor there in our discussion.

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

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

Come on, Ed.  Have to agree with Earl here.  Formality has nothing to do with
it.  If you had expressed your opinion on a subject (or your wishes concerning
something) on numerous occasions to a number of different people, any
reasonable person would conclude that your opinion was pretty well set (or that
your wish was firm).  *I* would certainly take it that way.  Now, many of us
have also written our wishes down as a backup, just in case.  But that in no
way lessens the validity of what we said verbally on many occasions, and I
would expect the courts to honor that, particularly if there were several first
hand witnesses to attest to that fact.

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)