The ultimate flame. 
Posted on 11/03/2003 6:08:39 PM PST by sweetliberty
It's God's squad :')
whatever...i used a lower case g as the christian god is no different to the greek gods to me....thus small g. Betcha you try to flame me for not believing in your god
Not really much of a difference between you and Terri as I see it.
Well, since nobody else has responded yet, I suppose I may as well.
From my own personal perspective, the things that I find most bothersome about this case are (1) the fact that Michael is not only refusing to provide therapy for Terri (with money that's been allocated for that purpose, mind) but he's also actively trying to prevent anyone else from doing so; (2) the fact that there has not been proper oversight of his guardianship of Terri or her assets.
If Terri had no relatives at all, and had simply been brought into a hospital after having been found at the side of the road, there might be some questions as to the extent to which society (via taxes) should be compelled to provide for her care. Likewise, if all of Terri's living relatives sought to disown her there would be some reasonable questions about the extent to which they should still be required to prepare for her care.
I don't know all the answers. And your questions are perfectly reasonable. Personally, my thinking is that when there is broad consensus regarding the right course of action, that course of action is usually right. This isn't always true--it's possible for twelve jurors to be wrong--but consensus decisions--when they are achievable--are usually correct ones.
In Terri's case, there is presently no consensus. If Terri's parents took Terri in and after a year or two of therapy concluded that she was by now permanently vegetative (whether or not she had been before Michael's mistreatments) then consensus regarding Terri's condition might be achieved. Were such consensus achieved, it would likely be right. But just as people don't get sentenced to death without consensus among jurors, neither should a woman get put to death without consensus among her kin.
The ultimate flame.
fortunately I think and do, not pray(hope)...
I think this is a very barbaric way to die or "let someone die". It is my opinion that this practice should be outlawed. If she is deamed to be brain dead (which no one has said so far) then her parents should be able to end her life by a more humane mechanism.
To me, Terri's prognosis for recovery should not be an issue here though. She is a living, breathing human being with no written will. She is not in a coma but severly disabled. She can feel pain. She has a right to food and water. Any recovery icing on the cake. We don't dehydrate or starve babies. Prisoners are force fed if they go on a hunger strike. We wouldn't think of starving an animal in this country, so why is it ok for Terri?
I have an idea... how about we deny you oral sustenance and also deny you a feeding tube, and see how long you live?
Re:
"Michael is not only refusing to provide therapy for Terri";
"actively trying to prevent anyone else from doing so"
That is strictly hearsay and not factual. It had been deemed
that no therapy will help, since Terri does not now have,
or will ever have, the mental ability to respond.
Re:
"If Terri had no relatives at all,"
The court would make the decision based on medical
diagnosis/prognosis.
Re:
"If Terri's parents took Terri in and after a year or two of therapy"
Terri has been in the same medical condition as she was at the onset
13 years ago, with exception to her brain in it's shrinking condition.
You are suggesting to extend her life support a few more years
just for her family's sake and peace of mind? The family has had
13 years of watching Terri. They could have taken any legal step
they desired, to gain guardianship. Instead, they chose to fight a
battle each time the decision was made to accept her proxy-plea
to have the support removed.
Is it really fair now, to extend the time beyond the 13 years the
family's already had? Should Terri be kept in limbo as long as
anyone dictates?
It certainly does not harm me; I lose nothing either way.
What can harm me, you and everyone else, is the reversing of a
court's decision after-the-fact, by a legislative process signed
into law by the executive branch.
That....... Is a trampling of the separation of power; It is
unconstitutional.
And it will erode rights and freedom, if it is allowed to remain
as a precedent.
Thanks again for your indulgence and reading. I do appreciate
your comments, as I'm sure all here do..
ah, and there is the rub, deny me a feeding tube and I can still eat. Let's give her substenace without a tube and see if she eats...if not, it is time to let the body die...geesh.....it does not take a rocket scientist in this situation........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.