Replies

Understand that general reaction and polls are based on misinformation.

To a certain extent, yes. Still they believed the husband and trash the family. I can't help wondering if a lot of this is based on their putting themselves in his shoes and not wanting themselves to be saddled with a useless spouse. I'm only human myself and at some point would get burnout. The problem is that regardless of your personal stake, you must still do your best to do the right thing imo. That's is what separates the sheep from the goats, not feelings. To me, doing the "right" thing doesn't involve years later "remembering" and starvation, especially of an individual who has not being diagnosed as terminal. In a worst case scenario, if Terri is truly PVS (which doesn't appear to be the case to me), that still doesn't excuse termination by deliberate starvation.

That is why it is critical that we all get as much FACTUAL information as possible out to several reporters/newscasters/talk show hosts as possible.

That is helpful, providing the factual information to get out are actual facts. We aren't privy to a lot of the facts. What I'm seeing is that people are no longer concerned with the facts. They react viscerally (hatred for the Bush brothers using Terri as their catalyst) and want to get on to the next show.

Even facts don't dissuade most people. Their minds are made up. As is mine, of couse, mainly because of the inconsistencies in the case. The bottom line for me is that no matter who has custody of a person, they ought not to be starved to death when we have the means to prevent it, especially on the basis of belated remembering and biassed "testimony".

I can't help wondering if a lot of this is based on their putting themselves in his shoes and not wanting themselves to be saddled with a useless spouse. I'm only human myself and at some point would get burnout.

Yes, but but would you react to such burnout by divorcing your spouse, or by killing your spouse?

By the time Michael won the malpractice award, more three years had elapsed since Terri's collapse. Consequently, he would have been eligible for a divorce. I don't think one would have been denied him, and Terri's trust fund would likely obviate the need for alimony. Of course, then he wouldn't be able to pocket Terri's trust fund himself, but he claims this isn't about money.

People are concerned with facts, but only if they do not feel that their point of view is being ignored during the dissemination of those facts.

Their underlying belief is that they will lose their own personal right to reject extreme medical intervention. They instantly see themselves in some sort of capsule with tubes and wires connecting them to central controls and pipes in a huge space filled with bodies that are also being held in suspended animation. They see themselves forced to care for a parent with dementia or terminal cancer for an endless amount of time. Or they question their own judgement about the DNR they enforced when a family member was at hospice.

These are very real, very valid emotions. You are absolutely right.

This type of situation is different, though. There is some sort of corruption involved somewhere that actually will do more to make their fears come true than anything the pro-life movement would be able do.

When a few bad guys start taking a good system and using it for their own personal gain, the natural result is increased government intervention and red tape.

We need to help them transfer their fear of the prolife movement to a fear of corruption. We also need to help them realize that plenty of people who consider themselves pro-life also believe in DNR's, etc. Removing food and water is not the same thing as rejection chemotherapy.

And as you say, we don't have enough solid proof yet to be "beyond reasonable doubt". We have presented a tremendous number of inconsistencies and we are digging for lies and motivation. But do need to find as much of the truth as possible. In doing so, others may also be saved.