And the removal of Ms. Schiavo's feeding tube has been pushed to the 18th.

[conuly]

Here.

Before people start debating this, let's get the following out of the way:
She doesn't use a ventilator.
She's not "hooked up to a machine" to live.
She isn't on life support, at least not as it's been defined to me.
She uses a feeding tube to eat. Removing this would cause her to starve to death/dehydrate.
Her parents say that she's minimally aware.
Her husband disagrees, and says that she didn't want to live like this.
He is living with another woman.
AFAIK, nothing from the insurance went to cover therapy for her.
It is argued that this therapy could've improved her condition.


Now you can go duke it out in my journal.

Comments

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

If he wants no part of her, he should divorce her.

Just put her behind him. Let her be her parent's responsbility.

And let her live. If there is question if one should live or die, always err on the side of living, I think. No one lives forever, but you are dear forever.

[conuly]

But then he couldn't get married in the church. And he couldn't inherit. That settlement wasn't enormous, but it was pretty significant.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

He could get an annulment, I bet. I would imagine that this would be grounds for it, what I know of the annulment process (if he is Catholic).

And hey, if he wants to wait around for the inheritence, then he has to deal with just living with his girlfriend. That's all. (If he is named in a will or on a policy, would divorcing void it? I know I actually changed names on my policies when I got divorced.)

[conuly]

Except the money in the policy isn't supposed to go to him or to his legal bills. It was supposed to go for therapy and treatment for her. I'm fairly certain that her parents would contest any attempts to take her money if she just died on her own.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

Oh, I thought you meant a life insurance policy.

[jet87.livejournal.com]

If he's living with another woman, it seems he wouldn't care too much about an annulment.

[jet87.livejournal.com]

I agree that if he doesn't want to deal with her, he should divorce her. However, getting the divorce when your spouse is (for lack of better word at the moment) disabled it could be harder than usual.

I've always believed in letting her live, and I'm not about to change sides.

[kibbles.livejournal.com]

It actually might be easier, as cold hearted as it sounds. In a lot of places not having intercourse for a year is enough reason for divorce (and the technical reason I got divorced since NYS doesnt have much in the way of grounds for divorce).

And as far as annulment goes, it was suggested by a priest that my husband annull our marriage (not knowing that we had a civil ceremony) because at the time it looked like I was sterile. I was a waste of perfectly good sperm, I guess. A similar ruling could take place. Hell, money can get almost anyone annulled.