It is possible to argue that refusal of Felos, Greer, et al. to allow anyone to even attempt to give Terri oral hydration and sustenance was nothing short of murder. Indeed, I happen to believe that to be the case.
It is also possible to argue that such refusal was right and proper. I happen to find such arguments unconvincing, but they are at least facially valid.
If the actions constituted murder, then Bush et al. should have seen that immediate action was taken against the perpetrators.
If the actions were right and proper, then Bush et al. should have left well enough alone.
Either course of action would have been supportable, even if one was wrong. But the only way I can see that the Bushs' actual actions could be argued to have been "correct" would have been if the initial interference was correct, and further interference would also have been correct but was blocked by a coup, and circumstances were not ripe for dealing with said coup.
One year later, this is still totally unacceptable to me. Judge Greer belongs in a federal prison instead of being on the lecture circuit before special interest groups and joking about his line of work (a hit man in a black robe).
Terri's Final Hours is on my profile page.
If we don't deny an animal a drink of water, how do you arrive that it is possible that Terri should be denied a drink of water? Other than that, I liked your response.