Replies

In spite of what others might say, this opinion is absolutely right in its clear and correct separation of life over ritualistic procedures of the courts.

Shockingly, to those of us who believe in upholding law and rights ... Terri's life was disposable ... her forgotten and purposefully overlooked rights, so clearly mandated by the Bill of Rights, Constitution and 14th Amendment were set aside on "hearsay evidence" which no other court allows and which if EVER uttered, MIGHT have been a casual utterance and far from a declaration of intent.

She was heartlessly disposed of due to the decisions of "courts" and "judges" who preferred the pomp of privilege and procedure of their robes to the protective mantles of our American values ... which provide, or are expected to provide due protection for human life itself.

While I do in fact agree with the author, I believe there is a different more effective way to arrive at the solution.

What needs to be addressed is whether or not people have a "right to die".

If you think about it for a moment, you can begin to see that we have in part ourselves to blame for this. How many of you here would believe that a "living will" would have been a solution?

I wrote an essay on my blog concerning this - I will report the relevent points I wish to address here ~~

Do we have a "right to die"?

The dangerously seductive arguement that many Americans seem to have unwittingly accepted is that we as individuals have a constitutional "right to die". Simply put, we don't.

Our nation's Supreme Court seems to think that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. It may in fact be a liberty, but it is not a fundamental or natural right. While the Ninth Amendment might seem to imply that we do in fact have additional fundamental or natural rights, what the court fails to recognize is that, it is not with their power to grant us those additional rights. Those fundamental rights are God given rights, natural rights, i.e., rights we possess by nature and not by law. To give an analogy, I have a right to go to Heaven, it is a liberty that I possess and yet the court cannot grant me that right. Likewise, the court cannot grant me the "right to die", only God can, and only when he chooses.

The courts now find themselves in a dilemma now by basing all their current and future judgements for other cases on a mistake made back in 1990 where our court played God and granted a "right" that they actually had no power to grant. The "right to die".

Throughout this recent case, the arguement accepted by the court seems to have centered on "This was Terri's wish." and "This is what Terri would have wanted." Im sure Terri like many of us also wants to go to Heaven.

Very well then, if the court feels that Terri can choose that she does not want to live her life based on her medical condition, then how can the same court deny a person who makes the choice i.e. the liberty that they don't want to live their life as a prisoner, as a drug addict, as a sick person, as a disabled or retarded person, as an only child, or as an ugly person, the list goes on. Surely if the court feels that the "right to die" is a liberty protected by the Due Process Clause then anyone at anytime can take their own life and choose the time of their death.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

I really like what Mr. Amos wrote near the end of pg 15 of the pdf,
due process by definition asks whether or not there has been a wrongful act that works a forfeiture of one's rights.

The libs or death squad kept saying those of us who were for Terri living were emotional and not seeing the real issue. However, it was their side who was guilty of emotion and how many times did someone say she ought to die, including Florida Senator Jim King. They made the argument emotional, that was their spin, so they could avoid discussing the real issue which is/was Terri's constitutional rights!

"hearsay evidence"

That has been my complaint from the beginning. Hearsay is not allowed in any court I know of. Even if it is the husband's or wife's whispers to their spouse. You cannot begin to allow "hearsay" just because it's the spouse.

And .. what kind of spouse was he .. he didn't fulfill his duties as a "guardian" - which Terri's family tried to get changed to them - and then Michael said they only wanted to be guardians in order to get access to the money .. but it was Michael who had already gotten access to the money and used it for lawyers to kill his wife. Neat!!