Cal

I read the court's transcript. It was pretty clear to me that the judge had a personal presumption that no one in her right mind would want to live in a PVS, and tailored his findings of fact accordingly, despite the fact that the law's presumption is actually in favor of continued medical treatment. (Judges letting their personal preferences influence their decisionmaking ... imagine that.) Well, as far as the court decision is concerned, the judge did seem to err on the side of the marriage. Beside, if I remember right, at the time she went into unconciousness, they were husband and wife in the full sense, and it was during their time as husband and wife that she expressed the desire NOT to be kept alive by purely feeding her, otherwise, dead body (brain death as it were).But, I don't want to rehash something already dealt with here. So you don't need to follow this up if you don't feel like it.

That is great!

Pardon me for not remembering if you have already told us, but were you ever a Mormon? If so, how did you come to leave mormonism?

Interesting! There aren't many Mormon lawyers in this area; the one I know the best is a Tax and Estate Planning lawyer with 30+ years experience and has been very generous in his mentoring. I have been pleasantly surprised at how helpful other lawyers are willing to be with relative rookies---especially in the first few years.Did you have the same experience as to the helpfulness of other lawyers?

As usual, you have very logical and intelligent responses. I submit that inspite of what you have said, and it is a rational statement, it STILL puts us in a position to take upon ourselves to judge the value of another human's life. Even if we think we have the wisdom to judge what "outweighs" what, we are still limiting the value of a human life. In other words, WE not God are making the decision as to the value of that life....we are assuming we have the wisdom to make that decision or valuation correctly. Maybe we do, as you imply, and maybe we don't; but we are still taking it upon OURSELVES to make the judgement that the murderer's live is not worth saving given the totality of the circumstances. Some see the circumstance devaluate that life to the point of extinguishing it; others don't see the circumstances waranting such depreciation. It really comes down to a value judgement on the worth of human life--everyone, I suspect, has a slightly different take on that value.

I was wondering why TNG kept grooming for lice in the middle of lunch. I was tempted to, but did not, tell him that I would consider going vegetarian on the day dolphins do. PD,Way off topic but I was just curious.....are there any other Mormons in your firm and do you find any difference between Mormon lawyers and non-mormon as to ethical practices? Just curious. Except in Trust Administration (where I hear from beneficiary's counsel at times) and an occasional Landlord Tenant case, I don't deal with other lawyers all that often, especially since I practice solo. Oh, and has your Estate Planning department seen more business since Shiavo? Again just curious. The day after her death, I got three calls for Estate Planning.

And yet, aren't men outlived by women by approximately seven years (on average?) I wonder if these studies are only on male populations. I wonder how LDS women measure up to our non LDS counterparts on life expectancy. It would be interesting to know--I haven't seen any data on it. I'll bet the wives of High Priests out live them.

I agree with you. I don't believe in the Church at all, but I also think that alot of anti-Mormon criticism is silly...especially when made by non-Mormon Christians. But I made that last comment because I seem to remember you being sort of "anti" last year...or was it longer...I have been away from this forum for so long. But sorry if I am being to personal...it is possible that I am thinking of someone else. No, you probably are thinking of me. I do have a tendency to overplay the devil's advocate bit. I'm not really as skeptical of Mormonism as my posts sometimes sound. As a way of life and as part of my own cultural heritage, everything taken in its totality, Mormonism, IMHO, is one of the most amazing social experiments in the history of mankind. If anything was "God inspired", it was. It ain't perfect, and some of the "History" that LDS promote is a bit bogus, but I would find it hard to believe that a divinely inspired religion wouldn't have its human flaws and anomolies. I don't believe in a lot of things that some people who claim to be the best of mormons believe. I don't think that much of anything in Genesis should be taken very seriously, for example. I also don't think that JS got it all right in the things he claimed to be translating. But I DO think that there was inspiration in the totality of it all---warts and all.

Well, if it WAS God talking to him, who are we to question it, and if it wasn't, why does it matter?

D&C 130: 15 "Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou art eighty-five years old (Dec 1890 - Dec 1891), thou shalt see the face of the Son of Man; therefore let this suffice, and trouble me no more on this matter." Yeah....so what's your excuse? Yes, but, it doesn't say whether JS will see God because he returns to earth, or he will see God because he (JS) has died and gone to heaven. I think that is what PD is refering to.As for me, I am worried more about my first going than Christ's second coming.

(Kimball consulting with his good buddy and convicted murderer Mark Hoffman) In 1960, future Prophet Spencer W. Kimball gave a speech at the LDS General Conference. Here's an excerpt... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today...they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people....For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised....The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation." "At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl -- sixteen -- sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents -- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated." Source: Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, 922-923. So is that out of context or this as disturbing as it sounds? It's out of context. In or out of contexts, it's pretty hard to defend it, based on today's social values and standards. Let's not defend it, let's just say it was his own benighted opinion, to which he is entitled, and is not binding on the church membership.

I agree it should not be used to condemn the LDS. It just should be used to condemn previous generations of white males. I won't get into the the discussion of whether or not a Prophet is above racism...I hate repetitive discussions. Cal, are you becoming softer and more sympathetic to the LDS since I last saw you? You are starting to sound like me on a good day I may sound quite skeptical of SOME claims by SOME Mormons, but, I also find some of the criticisms of Mormonism, equally or maybe more disingenuous.

The simple fact that the Church got alcohol and tobacco right is good enough for me!And by the way, do you know anyone who has died lately of carefully observing the Mormon word of wisdom---maybe it is all those Mormon high priests!

I would not be surprised it that is true. However, while they may have longer life expectancies, a good portion of their life is spent in repetitive meetings. It is important to look at QUALITY of life, in addition to QUANTITY. Haven't you heard, nothing makes a man happier than to spend an hour away from women! Talk about quality of life! What a relief! Why do you think they live so long. (Sorry, ladies, just joking!--sort of)

Hi, Curvo, long time......I read recently that anthropolgists think that an exposure to a high protein diet, by humans migrating to coastal environments (eating shell fish, fish, and other high protein foods) fueled the development of the human brain, and literally helped make us smarter.

I haven't digested any Onions lately--but I will take your word for it.

Inspite of Snow's, snowjob, I think Mormons are superior in most categories of social and psychological health. It is a well established fact, by reliable studies, that the longest life expectancy of any subgroup of americans is Mormon high priests. Also, it is a fact that Utah, for over 40 years, out produced all the others states in professional scientists on a per capita basis, as is still near the top, if not the top. (the latest update on that study was done in the late 90's) If it is not due to Mormon influence, at least it can not be said with any credibility that Mormonism stiffles intellectual achievement.

I think the husband had the right to get a lawyer if he was the responsible party. Which he was. He was doing what he felt he should do and used the means to take care of Terri with that money even if it meant taking care of her by releasing her from that dispicable shell of a body. I see no compromise in ethics to use the money for Terri's care here. It was for benefiting her the best way he could. I find it ironic that some of the people in this country that most loudly proclaim the SANCTITY of marriage were the first to say that Michael, THE HUSBAND, should not have the right to enforce the wishes of his wife or be the one who determined what those wishes were. Apparently, the Court was convinced that Michael was telling the truth about his wifes wishes.

I believe she died when Father in Heaven took her spirit. When that was, only she and the Lord would know. I could guess that it was sometime between 1990 and 2005. Honestly, we could debate this till the cows come home, but it wouldn't ever come to a difinitive answer. How could we know except the Spirit told us, and since it really isn't our business, the Spirit probably won't tell us. Amillia, Thank you for your reply. I believe the same thing that you do about a person dies when Heavenly Father takes their spirit. I tend to believe that we don't actually die until our hearts stop beating. You take someone who has a near death experience, and for a time, their spirit leaves their body right? Yes, but are they dead for real? What about Lazarus and others who were raised from the dead or brought back by the Lord as in NDE? It really is God's territory isn't it? I think there are some things we just shouldn't have any control over, yet we think we are wise enough to give and take life, even if it isn't real life we are giving. It is all part of our testing. We are given knowledge, but with all of our getting of this knowledge, are we getting understanding? I really don't think we are doing too well in that catagory. I think we have to have courage to change what we can, serenity to accept the things we cannot change and wisdom to know the difference. I think wisdom is both knowledge and the use of it to the benefit, not damage, of all people. However, agency of man, keeps all the world swirling around in some pretty questionable decisions. We all do stupid things, we all make bad decisions, and sometimes we all are fooled into thinking we know better than someone else how it should be done. But sometimes we can look back upon those times and see that we really didn't know better. Amillia, may I assume then that you are against capital punishment--since we ought not think of ourselves "wise enough to give and take life"?

It's all about what concessions one is will to make. Can a potato consent to be eaten? How about an apple? If your friend insists on "consent" as the governing principle of cuisine, cannabalism remains the only choice--the only consent I ever gave to being eaten was one time when I bit a hangnail, but I didn't swallow, so I guess that doesn't count.YOu might also ask your friend if there is any difference between the amino acids that end up in your blood stream from say eating beans, and the amino acids that you end up with from eating meats? The only fundamental difference is that animals have fats that are chemically fundamentally different from vegetable fats (the vegetable ones being better for you). The carbs are identical, and the proteins all end up in the same form--amino acids. So what remains as the significant difference. Well, meats do give you a lot more of the harmful fats--that's about it---and you could, theoretically, get too much protein.

That would be a step into the Dark Ages, wouldn't it? That would be as stupid as if the LDS Church were to condemn Evolution--that is, to say that good church members are forbidden to believe in organic evolution is God's way of bringing about us and the rest of the species.

Even if there are alternate space-time continuums, which I don't believe are excluded by present laws of physics, if God is as eternal as the scriptures indicate, then we ask "Is God in charge of all of them (if there is a limited number)?" or "was He created along with this present universe", 10 to 13 billion years ago--that certainly seems like an eternity ago. Since there are lots of scriptural terms that don't really mean what they say "all of this" or "never this" or "the whole world Flooded"--which of course it didn't, so all and the whole and never, don't actually mean what they say.......then perhaps when the scriptures say God is eternal, it doesn't really mean all THAT eternal, just 10 to 13 billion years eternal.

(Kimball consulting with his good buddy and convicted murderer Mark Hoffman) In 1960, future Prophet Spencer W. Kimball gave a speech at the LDS General Conference. Here's an excerpt... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today...they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people....For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised....The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation." "At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl -- sixteen -- sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents -- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather....These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated." Source: Improvement Era, Dec. 1960, 922-923. So is that out of context or this as disturbing as it sounds? Let's see, this Kimball quote proves.........that Kimball was raised in the early 1900's when it was still socially and politically correct to think in terms of skin color? Further, I don't remember the First Presidency ever suggesting that Kimball's opinions should be cannonized.

As far as Terrorists go, I doubt it would be on the top of their list of projects for a few of reasons: 1) unless the depot is near a populated area, which this doesn't sound like, the radiation is not likely to do much of the kind of damage that terrorists like to brag about. The inverse square law of radiant phenomenon tends to apply-meaning that assuming the radioactive substances spread out evening in all direction (which is not always assumed due to the wind factor), therefore, detonating an explosive devise in one of them may spread a little radioactive material around the immediate area, but would tend to reach a pretty low level by the time it reached much population.2) There are a lot more dramatic ways to make their point. 3) Polluting the drinking water is a very ineffective way to do terrorism--mainly because pollutants tend to get dilluted to the point of harmlessness and second because they are so easily detected before the reach the population. There are a lot better reasons to leave SLC, I'm sure---I just can't think of any right now Also---actually, the chemical danger of plutonium is just as bad as its radioactive effect. As a chemical plutonium is one of the nastiest chemicals around--extremely carcinogenic and toxic. But as PD pointed out, the danger from these storage activities seems to be minimal--modern techiques seem to keep the material secure--no one, I can think of, has been harmed by any storage problems with nuclear waste. One of the safest ways the material is stored is in salt mine in the Gulf of Mexico region---old salt mines aren't absolutely "water proof"--but since they have been for 10's of thousands of years, they are a pretty good bet. The best (barring the economics and techical problems) solution would be to shoot is all into the sun, but that is a lot harder than it sounds. As to the politics of Utah---I doubt any state would lobby for the priviledge--tends to lower property values!

zNo problem, Jenda.