You are exaggerating. This is about killing people, it's about refusing med services. The fact is I've done that more than once. I'm obviously not dead as I was told I would be and I'm also not crippled as I was assured I would be. I've also refused it on occasion in my daughter's case. She is fine and never was in danger as the docs claimed. In fact in all docs really had to offer is lifelong crippling injury, by allowing their intervention.
You see in the end all the docs have to offer in these cases considered here is a suspention of life in some unnatural stage of death. Some people don't want to be suspended in the middle of dying. That is the essence of the topic and it does not include killing disabled folks.
Read Father Murphy's testimony." It will give you the proper perspective and the relevant scenario.
Denying any person food and water both orally and by gastrototomy (note that Michael has explicitly blocked any efforts at oral feeding/hydration for Terri) will kill them. Not 50% of the time, not 95% of the time, but 100% of the time.
Should we release from prison all those who have been accused of fatally starving their children, on the basis that they didn't kill them--they merely "let them die"?
I wish you were right. Unfortunately, my post #31 is no exaggeration. This is a right-to-die, euthanasia case. It is not about medical choices, it is about killing a person.
Terri is a handicapped individual whose only dependency is food (like the rest of us). There is no proof that she wants to die, other than her husband's word, which is compromised by his severe conflict of interest.
You say this is about medical choice. Since Terri has no ability to make medical decisions, I can only assume you feel the husband has absolute power over his wife's care, even to the point of forcibly ending her life. The only medical choice here is Michael Schiavo's choice to have his wife killed. He could just as easily keep her alive, to the joy of her parents, and marry the woman he's been living with. Instead, he is seeking to end Terri's life.
Terri is not terminally ill. Remember, her only dependency is food. Her husband wants to withhold that necessity of life in order to cause her death.
My assertion is that no person can lawfully make that decision for another person.
My other assertion is that no person can lawfully make that decision for himself.
As I stated previously, even if Terri had specified in writing or recording a desire to be killed rather than live mentally handicapped, society should not honor that wish. To allow that right would mean that handicapped people have less protection under law. Either that, or it would mean that all persons have the right to suicide, even if they are healthy. Such a thing cannot be permitted under the American concept of justice and rights.
This is an entirely different issue than simply refusing medical care. In fact, I support you in making your own medical decisions, provided this does not mean supporting a right to intentionally commit suicide. I think we should put our lives in God's hands, and let the Lord take us as He sees fit.
I wish you well.