Replies

Some thoughts and facts:

Although counterintuitive, what was being done to Terri was not inhumane. Conscious patients with terminal diseases (usually advanced cancer) sometimes elect to stop receiving food and drink. They uniformly report that they are not suffering during the week or so that they remain conscious, and withholding nourishment and water is an accepted practice in the hospice community. This obviously assumes that the patient wants to die, which I understand is the major point of contention.

There is every reason to believe that Terri has no awareness of her surroundings. Who benefits from preserving her mitochondria? Who is paying for her care? Are disability checks going to anybody? Yes, it's crass to think of these things, but when there are opposite sides arguing vociferously, following the money can shed light on the situation.

Insertion of a feeding tube and using it to provide nutrition in any medical setting requires a physician's prescription. How does the state compel a doctor to write a prescription? Traditionally, state action has allowed or disallowed medical procedures, but I have never heard of a law that can compel a medical procedure.

This whole situation stinks. There are things worse than death, and Terri is there.

Although counterintuitive, what was being done to Terri was not inhumane. Conscious patients with terminal diseases (usually advanced cancer) sometimes elect to stop receiving food and drink. They uniformly report that they are not suffering during the week or so that they remain conscious, and withholding nourishment and water is an accepted practice in the hospice community.

I beg to differ. Depriving her of life was inhumane, in and of itself.

And as for your example of conscious patients with terminal illnesses: Yes, some are nauseated either by their illness or by the morphine that may be administered to them. They do not want to eat, and the morphine they receive usually will help keep starvation from being painful.

This is very different from what happens to a non-terminal, non-medicated patient who is simply brain-damaged, not ill.

Whether she's aware of her surroundings or not is difficult to establish -- videos taken a couple of years ago suggest that she was then, but that could have changed in the interim. Her parents and siblings are willing to care for her at home, and since she requires only feeding, this isn't much expense. She has a medical trust fund of over $1 million from a malpractice suit. Her husband is eager to get his hands on that money, which will go to him when she dies.

I'm in favor of euthanasia when proper safeguards are in place, but this case is loaded with conflicts of interest and suspicious details -- like how the husband suddenly remembered that Terri had said she didn't want to be kept alive artificially, just AFTER the $1 million+ malpractice award was won; and how he was insisting that she be cremated immediately after her death, though many questins remain about broken bones she may have sustained at his hands.

Christopher Reeves has a much lower quality of life, but he choose to live and be a role model for others.
Stephen Hawkings has a very low quality of life, but he shooses to live too.

Terri is brain damaged. Rehabilitation is normal for brain damaged people, but her husband chose not to give it to her. I hope that she does not have as much pain as a normal person, but she is a person and does not deserve to be starved to death slowly over many days.

That is why some states outlaw the removal of feeding tubes. It is not the same as pulling the plug on someone who is brain dead and only being kept alive by machines.

Do you personally know this Terri? Have yo become so cold hearted so as to undermine someone who does know Terri well? Her parents. Do you really believe that dear hubby, living with another woman who is pregnant with his second child does NOT have reason to want her dead? Hav eyou ever wondered why dear hubby doesn't just divorce Terri and move on? It's because of the money that belongs to Terri. If Terri didn't have to will to live, she would have been dead a lont time ago.

What's wrong with you?

"Some thoughts and facts: "

Thoughts, yes, facts no.

"Although counterintuitive, what was being done to Terri was not inhumane. Conscious patients with terminal diseases (usually advanced cancer) sometimes elect to stop receiving food and drink."

Your premise to promote her murder is inaccurate. She does NOT have a termianl disease. The problem is you see her as disposable since she doesn't measure up to your standards. Your concern about money is also crude. If her parents ahd the money to fight for her life. They'll find the money for help in her care as well as get the money Terri was awarded.

>> This whole situation stinks. There are things worse than death, and Terri is there. <<

Your evaluation of Terri's awareness and responsiveness only become valid once efforts have been made to provide her with rehabilitative therapy. Here husband for 13 years has refused to allow any, absolutely any, support that could provide stimulation and therapy for Terri. He has gone so far as to stop nurses from giving her sponge baths and other routine care. Given proper therapy she may be much more cognitive than anyone can guess right now.

"There is every reason to believe that Terri has no awareness of her surroundings."

You who wish to kill people like Terri have an interesting paradox to resolve. If Terri has no awareness, and she is not suffering, why kill her? There is always the chance she may recover to some extent at some time in the future, others have.

How a society deals with those least able to defend themselves speaks volumes about that society. For instance, in the case of abortion, we are not doing very well. I, for one, am glad to see that we are not so callous yet that a simple cost/benefit analysis is all that is required to condemn a person in Terri's condition to death just yet.

There are things worse than death, and Terri is there.

If Terri wanted to die, she would have died a long time ago. If you know anything about medicine, you'd know it's pretty impossible to keep someone alive if they lose their will to live. This poor woman has been starved for 6 days ---- and still she did not die. That is one strong will to live.