[Gondring]

The old people should be more worried that someone might decide they don't want to live as they are, even when they themselves have made no such decision.

Agreed...or that someone might decide they want to live as they are (despite their wishes), or that their marriage isn't good enough for the spouse to make decisions, or any of the other things the "anti-Terri" clowns are bringing to the circus they've created.

It's about time the focus turned to a respect of rights, rather than "'life' at all costs"... >sigh<

[supercat]

Agreed...or that someone might decide they want to live as they are (despite their wishes),

If Terri had issued a written declaration saying she did not want to be given food and water via g-tube, we would not be having this discussion. Anyone who would wish those things but declines to make a written (or tape-recorded, or otherwise tangible) statement to that effect cannot be presumed to have an overly strong wish.

It seems to me there are four possible interpretation of the testimony of Michael and his relatives regarding Terri's wishes:

1. They are made up from whole cloth.
2. Terri made some vague remark, but didn't intend it to be construed as a statement of desire (e.g. if someone says "I'd rather be dead than be seen wearing thar garment", that is not an invitation for someone to shoot them if they wear the garment in public).
3. Terri made a remark, intending that it apply to the technologies that were considered "life support" at the time the remark was made.
4. Terri said "Oh, and by the way, if the legislature ever allows incapacitated people to be fatally starved and dehydrated, I want you to do that even if I'm perfectly capable of breathing on my own and don't need any of the equipment that would nowadays be called 'life support'."

Obviously, you believe #4 is the correct interpretation. Frankly, I do not. If Terri had what in 1991 would have been considered such an unusual wish, she should have written it down. The notion that she had such a wish in 1991 should be considered extraordinary, and as James Randi would say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

...or that their marriage isn't good enough for the spouse to make decisions, or any of the other things the "anti-Terri" clowns are bringing to the circus they've created.

If there were no particular conflicts between Michael's interests and Terri's, he would have a reasonable right to make these sorts of decisions. But when a man seeks to kill his wife after openly pledging to marry another woman, only a fool would believe that he's motivated by his wife's interests rather than his own.

Also, I'd like to know any legitimate reason Michael might have for refusing to let Terri's parents attempt to have her fed orally. If Terri happens to asphyxiate during such efforts, Michael would be rid of Terri that much faster but his hands would be clean of her death. And Terri would suffer that much less than if she were fatally dehydrated. So Michael shouldn't mind in that case. And if the efforts are unsuccessful but don't hasten Terri's death, things wouldn't be any worse for Terri or Michael than they would be otherwise, but Michael would look a lot better in many people's eyes. So that too should be a win for Michael.

So why won't let Michael let the parents try to feed Terri, since it would seem like--if he's telling the truth--there would be no downside to either him or Terri? Can you think of any reason?

[pc93]

WHERE THERE IS LIFE, THERE IS HOPE.