Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thepoetinmyhear
Yes, legally Michael is the one who is meant to make the decisions. The parents didn't even object when he was appointed gaurdian in 1990. They didn't object to his treatment of their daughter until he made a motion to remove the tube in 1998. That is when they filed their first objection to his qualifications. The reason this has been such an issue is that the parents were able to raise sufficient doubt to open an arbitration in the beginning. This is likely due to the money involved at the time (money that is now spent).
Their claim is that their daughter would never have said that she wanted to die and he is not acting on her interests. Every single court that has reviewed the case (only one has heard the case) disagrees with this idea and supports Michael's claim to the extent of declaring that clear evidence beyond any doubt exists (the highest decision the court can award) that Terri would have preferred not to be kept alive through artificial means.
|
I don't mean to be insensitive, but, in the eyes of the law, does it matter if the parents disagree with his decision in the least?