If Terri's mom, dad and family manage to gain
sole guardianship.......
If after more [or less] than a year of sole guardianship,
their own doctors, through thorough and complete
examination, find that Terri will never regain any
ability to have any voluntary actions....
That Terri will forever be in a vegetated state, unable
to communicate in any manner.... unable to have any
movement except that what is involuntary.
And Terri's parents decide that it would be in her
very best interest to allow her soul to rest....
And they decide that it is time to remove her life
support apparatus [feeding tubes] and allow her
body to expire.....
What will you do in response?
Will you again fight for Terri's body to remain on
it's life support, in spite of her parent's decision?
Or will you allow her body to starve itself to it's death.
Your answer should be well thought out. It will
tell more about yourself than you may desire.
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.
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.