The Schiavo issue

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

He moved in with the woman he now calls his fiancee in 1995. They have two kids.

I wonder how the public would have reacted if he insisted that he and his wife wanted children, so he insisted having her bear children in her vegatative state? What exactly are spousal rights anyway?

[wendybeth]

€uro, it's amazing someone hasn't done that yet.....

I don't have a problem with him moving on, I have a problem with him not moving on. He is still married to Terry, and he has two kids and a fiancee. Is it about control? Money? I don't get it.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I don't have a problem with him moving on, I have a problem with him not moving on. He is still married to Terry, and he has two kids and a fiancee. Is it about control? Money? I don't get it.

If he truly believes that she would rather die than be kept alive, remaining married to her is the only chance he has of helping her receive that wish.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

If he truly believes that she would rather die than be kept alive, remaining married to her is the only chance he has of helping her receive that wish.

Again, it's the timeline that bothers me. He filed the motion three years after he moved in with his girlfriend, a full eight years after the injury.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

Again, it's the timeline that bothers me. He filed the motion three years after he moved in with his girlfriend, a full eight years after the injury.

I'd like to see more elaboration, but the judge in the February 2000 decission said about that, "That assertion hardly seems worthy of comment other than to say that he should not be faulted for having done what those opposed to him want to be continued." The decission also mentions that he consistently provided for a high level of care, and at the time visited her more regulararly than anyone else, including her family. Hardly sounds like someone who considered her a burden he wanted to get rid of.

[lizziebith]

This man's best hope of giving his "formerly cognitively-alive wife" her wishes is by remaining married to her. All the parties have acknowledged he could have gotten a divorce long ago.

This woman is only IN her vegetative state thanks to modern medicine's interventive measures. She'd have been buried long ago if she'd had the good fortune to have been born in a previous century. As my Catholic friend said: "if you believe in an afterlife, send her there NOW!"

The ONLY good thing that's happened due to this case so far is that many of us have been forced to visit the issue of living wills. My honey and are are talking to our attorney tomorrow.

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

If he truly believes that she would rather die than be kept alive, remaining married to her is the only chance he has of helping her receive that wish.

I'd like to think that I would have the loyalty to stay true to Crystal and fulfill her wishes. It would be a crappy job fighting her parents as I've grown to love them. But I'd do it. At least, I like to believe I would. Who knows for certain?

[SacTown Chronic]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

He is still married to Terry, and he has two kids and a fiancee. Is it about control? Money? I don't get it.

Maybe he has a burning desire to be a widower.

[Claire]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I don't have a problem with him moving on, I have a problem with him not moving on. He is still married to Terry, and he has two kids and a fiancee. Is it about control? Money? I don't get it.

I'm not sure what people want him to do. He can't stop this process. Divorcing her won't stop the process. It was a court decision, a decision that has been appealed again and again and has been upheld.