Replies

Well, OK, Jwalsh. I truly have not formulated my position on this. I think your position of government intervening only when there's an "absolute necessity" is too simplistic, as the line of absolute necessity is subjective. If someone were to write it as a law how would it read? How do you define "family member"? Are all family members given equal power in this situation? What misdeeds of spouses warrant their losing their voice in these decisions? I could present hundreds of scenarios that fall into gray areas. What if Terri's husband were a jerk but her only other relative was crazy Aunt Sadie from Toledo?

If the federal (or state for that matter) government is going to make some law about this it had better be a damn good law, and frankly I don't trust our government to make some "one-size-fits-all" law that will protect individual freedom (not just the freedom to live, but the decision to live your life as you see fit). If there is a law passed, as many here have proposed, that says the state must always err on the side of life the result would be that any conflict that reaches the state level would be decided only one way. That means you better have a great way to decide what reaches the state, because that will really be the determining factor. I don't have a great way to decide that, and I don't think you do either.

Now people will jump in and say that Terri's case was clear-cut, blah,blah,blah, Michael's a terrible husband, etc. But I am not talking about Terri, I'm talking about where do we go from here? Terri's dead, but we're still here, so what do we do now? Do we want to change the laws and if so then how?

As bad as the present system is I have yet to hear of a better one. I think I am like most Americans in that I don't want my decisions made for me by the government if I am disabled. And I don't want the government telling me "well you should have had a living will, tough luck, buddy". It's none of their freaking business, they're plenty intrusive enough already.