Text 11728, 44 rader
Skriven 2005-04-17 20:42:00 av Jeff Binkley (1:226/600)
     Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: RE: BO GRITZ
====================
EC>-> Which I have a problem with.  As long as she has family available
EC>-> to  speak on her behalf, they should be allowed to do so.

EC>Her parents did not speak on her behalf -- they spoke AGAINST it.
EC>While we can all sympathize with the emotional stress of the parents,
EC>their wishes were in conflict with hers.  Since she was an adult and
EC>mentally competent at the times that she expressed her wishes, they
EC>should clearly outweigh the wishes of anyone else when it comes to
EC>control of HER body.

EC>-> The state should 
EC>-> not interfere, especially with a life or death situation

EC>Agreed, but the parents tied up the matter for seven years by their
EC>baseless resistance. The whole matter should have ended in 1998,
EC>without all the court cases and without the unconstitutional state
EC>and federal laws.  The state did not step in and interfere.  The
EC>husband ASKED the court to step in as an impartial surrogate for
EC>Terri, after her court-appointed guardian-ad-litem concluded that
EC>NEITHER he NOR the parents were impartial surrogates for her
EC>interests.  He didn't have to do that.  He could have pulled rank on
EC>them, since spouses trump parents in the matter.  He went out of his
EC>way to give them a chance to voice their views in front of an
EC>impartial decisionmaker.  And no one was helped at all by that seven
EC>year ordeal, except the Randall Terrys and Eric Rudolphs of the
EC>world.

If the state were truly impartial, it would have not gotten involved.  
Nothing stopped the state from referring this back to Michael for the 
ultimate decision.  Sorry but I am not buying a state ordered execution 
under any circumstance where family is available.  The state was wrong 
to go beyond assigning either the parents or Michael as the final 
decision maker.  The state should get involved to save life not destroy 
it.  They award custody of children to the state when parents are unfit 
and children are in danger.  The state's goal should always be to 
protect life except in the case of convicted death row inmates.  As I 
said before, if Michael really didn't want to make the decision he 
should have awarded custody of Terry to the state.  He chose not to.     

Jeff


--- PCBoard (R) v15.3/M 10
 * Origin:  (1:226/600)