Replies

We're at the same impasse. She can't think, she can't feed herself, she can't swallow, she can't feel pain, and the courts have found in the hubby's favor. That's the end of the chapter. Open a new chapter, how we reform the judicial mess? It sure isn't through cutting the binds which hold us together.

I don't want the government to 'help' me in this matter.

There is convincing evidence that she can think; even if one rejects the video evidence and testimony of caregivers, one would still have to have reasonable proof that she can't think, assuming one has any respect for human life at all.

A baby can't feed itself. Nor can an Alzheimer's patient with dementia. Should those two classes of people be legally starvable? Come to think of it, if not for the machinery of modern civilization, and the markets that bring food to the grocer, I wouldn't be able to feed myself, either. I have no farming skills. Without guns I wouldn't be much of a hunter, either. So in the big picture she's no less able to feed herself than most people are. She can eat, and that's all she needs to stay alive. She can also swallow. But she's been forbidden by the court from doing that, too.

If she couldn't feel pain, why is she given morphine? She almost certainly does feel pain. Again here without certainty that she doesn't, respect for life demands an assumption that she does.

The courts have found in the husband's favor, no argument there. The courts also found in Roe's favor, and in favor of Dred Scott's "owner". So it is well established that the courts can, following the established rule of law, come to conclusions that are vile, evil, and/or atrocious. The courts' purpose is to serve justice, otherwise why have courts in the first place? Would the truth in this case have changed at all, had one judge given a different opinion? No, the truth stays the same no matter what any person does. It is a major function of the courts to discover it.

Opening the new chapter, first we must acknowledge that the judiciary is in sore need of thorough reform, that it is not producing justice, and that we should set the goal of changing it so that it does produce justice.

Working from the idea you presented, I would suggest a good place to start might be to examine how our courts determine the truth and find out why it is resulting in patently false findings, and why, where that does happen, there is no possibility of a meaningful review of those findings. The only court in this case which addressed the facts at all was Greer's; all others addressed only appeals on procedural issues. That's one thing that sticks out to me as a glaring problem.

I'm not a lawyer though, and I bet there are some folks around who could find a more solid way to express our ideas in legal terms.