> In the state of Florida, a spouse is legally empowered to act on
> behalf of his or her incapacitated mate.
[ ... ]
> "There are a lot of people in the shadows, all over this country, who
> are incapacitated because of a disability," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa,
> said to reporters on Saturday. Harkin, who has worked on
> disability-rights issues for decades, said "there ought to be a
> broader type of a proceeding that would apply to people in similar
> circumstances ... Where someone is incapacitated and their life
> support can be taken away, it seems to me that it is appropriate --
> where there is a dispute, as there is in this case -- that a federal
> court come in, like we do in habeas corpus situations, and review it
> and make another determination."
My emphasis: "where there is a dispute, as there is in this case"
Yes, there's a dispute, Mr Fancypants Iowa Senator Guy. But isn't Florida law crystal clear on this? I'm sure lots of people want to talk about the law and changing it or bringing it to the federal level, etc. But as it stands today (and, uh, for the last 15 years?), does her husband have the legal right to act on her behalf or not? All this stuff about "is she in persistent vegetative state?" or "what about the insurance money?" or "she was bulemic!" or "they were going to break up!" etc. ... it's all just noise, right? What are the facts?
- She's married to him - She's unable to make a decision for herself - Florida has a law about this specific situation
I know it's usually dumb to start asking the lawyers here to articulate the legal angle to these kinds of stories, but I can't stand it anymore. Is this case just full of shit or what?
/jordan