"-=jd=-" wrote in message
...
On Fri 25 Mar 2005 10:16:59a, "Honus"
wrote in message news:LXV0e.24540$oa6.9834@trnddc07:

{snippage}

Again, it's already been established beyond any doubt.

That's incorrect as well - It has been established by a "preponderance of
the evidence", which is all that is required in a civil trial. In other

I don't know what's up, but you are -seriously- misquoting me! This is the
relevant passage:


RHF said:

It seems like the Husband is afraid to let his Wife be
Revived; because She just may 'implicated' Him as
"The Cause of Her Accident.

And I replied:

Again, it's already been established beyond any doubt. Furthermore,
she -can't- be revived because the relevant part of her brain is -gone-.

What I said has nothing to do with her wishes. What's up?

words, the judge found one side of the argument as more credible that the
other. The Judge felt the evidence was 51% (or more) in favor of the
husband. If proof beyond a reasonable doubt were required this would never
have been settled. The only evidence offered at the time was witness
anecdotes. "He said -- she said" type of accounts. That was all determined
at some point in the past. Since that time, the conflicting accounts that
were raised in that proceeding have been joined by other conflicting
accounts. However, to the husband's relief, the Judge has refused to hear
anyone else's anecdotal account relating to her "wishes". It's all rather
sad, actually.

That's untrue. The matter was addressed in court, and both sides had the
opportunity to present their sides. Furthermore, I wouldn't characterize
this as He said She said. It appears to me, and I could very easily be
mistaken, that it's a case of "She said" vs. "She never said anything about
it to me". (I haven't heard anyone claim that she ever stated she wanted be
be kept alive by heroic measures.) I think it's an important difference. As
for the "preponderance of evidence" the judge in his written order (which
was upheld on appeal) used the term "clear and convincing evidence". I'm no
lawyer, and perhaps there's no difference between the terms, legally. But it
sure sounds like it to me. It's an interesting question; I wonder if they
are two different standards?

Furthermore,
she -can't- be revived because the relevant part of her brain is -gone-.
It no longer exists. It died during her heart attack, atrophied away and
has been replaced by spinal fluid. No one's ever grown a new brain
before, which is the miracle that people are praying for and want to
keep her alive for. If she could be revived, this whole thing wouldn't
be an issue. In fact, we'd have never heard about it.

IIRC, when her husband took her to Calif for some type of experimental or
otherwise risky procedure, she developed an infection after electrodes
were
implanted in her brain. The sum total result of all the damage is a severe
case of hydroencephaly (sp?) where spinal fluid began building in her
head.
It's my understanding that where a large majority of her brain used to be,
there is now empty space filled by spinal fluid.

Be that as it may, she still can survive without benefit of artificial
respiration or cardiac stimulation. If her parents are willig to assume
full responsibility for her health and welfare, than I see no credible,
valid, humane reason to deny that option. If the option remains available,
I always choose life over death for an innocent.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. But I appreciate the gracious
way in which you've chosen to discuss it. (Other than that quoting anomaly.)