[summer]

So why not presume the spouse is acting in her interests?

Because some people felt that when her husband wanted to pull the plg OVER allowing her parents to care for her -- that this was wrong.

To them, that would constitute "abuse."

Let me try to sum up this way: For some people on the extreme left, this case was a "Right to Die" case, and a "Right to Life" case for those who some say are on the extreme right.

But, for others watching this matter, it was neither one of the above -- rather, it was a "Right to Care For" case, with the parents showing the desire and will to care for their daughter.

Parents seeing it this way could not help but side with those parents. They did not see why parents should be denied the right to care for their child when no written directions existed for that adult child now incapacitated.

No such right to care like that can ever exist when a spouse sees it one way, and the parents see it the other way, and the courts recognize the spouse's view but not the parents' view. And, again, I am certain we will see this type of case again.

Thanks to you and others for an interesting discussion. (I stayed up way later than I intended!)

[Earthdweller]

Nit pik..this law..that law. When do we get the heart and common sense part?

[TAdams8591]

It is very much like the story of King Solomon, the baby and the two mothers. Too bad Judge Greer and all the Judges who touched this case lacked King Solomon's wisdom.

You are correct. Some people did view it through parental goggles. Attorney David Boise (Sp?) saw it that way.

[Gondring]

"Right to Care" is an odd one, as it presumes the right of one person over another. How can I have a **right** to "care for" (i.e., keep alive) a person who doesn't want it. That's saying that my right to care for someone overrides their own self-determination... and is so unAmerican!