Replies

With all due respect, I think that Terri's law makes it difficult for the government to step in again except when certain conditions are met. Part of those conditions is that two "sides" of family members disagree about whether or not the feeding tube should have been removed in the first place. The law wasn't originally designed to cover the situation when the families disagreed. It was intended to give them permission when they did (agree).

With all due respect, I think that Terri's law makes it difficult for the government to step in again except when certain conditions are met.

One of which would be that the government invent a time machine, since the governor's authority is self-expiring except that stays issued while the law is in effect will remain so until explicitly recinded.

With all due respect, I think that Terri's law makes it difficult for the government to step in again except when certain conditions are met. Part of those conditions is that two "sides" of family members disagree about whether or not the feeding tube should have been removed in the first place. The law wasn't originally designed to cover the situation when the families disagreed. It was intended to give them permission when they did (agree).

Who will set the parameters on intervention? Traditionally one spouse makes the decisions for the other in the case of incompetence, maybe it's appropriate to take that power away in this case but will it be in the next one? My experiences with court-appointed guardians have not always been positive, they are not necessarily people you want trusting lives with. Sometimes they are more poorly equipped than the families.

Right now this is a "special case" but you know that there will be more, and lawyers will try to broaden the definitions of appropriate cases and find judges that agree with them. Maybe this is all inevitable but I don't have to be happy about it.