Quote:
|
Originally Posted by FRPLG
Also...on a philosophical note I would argue that is should not be the parents who have to prove that she would have wanted to die. It should be Michael Schiavo's responsibility to prove she would want to die.
|
See this is what I get for talking before I get all the facts. I agree with this analysis. It seems to me anyone asserting that the incapacitated person wished to die should bear the burden of proof. From Schneed's earlier post, I thought this had happened.
FRPLG - If a judge or jury ruled that the husband credibly testified to the fact that Mrs. Schiavo wanted to die, then he probably did meet his burden of proof if it was by a mere preponderance regardless of the independent investigators.
A related question: what is the burden of proof someone should have to satisfy in cases where the incapacitated individual's decision is disputed: Mere preponderance? Beyond a reasonable doubt? or something in between?