the decisions were being made by the wrong people
I won't say that's an unreasonable conclusion considering how Michael Shiavo has been characterized--especially on FR. But that's one of the problems I have with this case. I haven't walked in Michael Shiavo's shoes. But if I had and knowing my wife wouldn't want to continue in such a state, I still would've pursued treatment to see if anything could bring her out of that state, just as Michael Shiavo did. If over time I found no treatment would work, I would give in and carry out her wishes. I would also see her wishes carried out regardless of what others thought. Once the decision is made, I wouldn't expect him to put his life completely on hold. And anyway, no one knows how his relationship with the other women began. She may have offered moral support which over time blossomed into a relationship. But that's speculation no different than speculating Michael Shiavo a wife beater, which BTW, the other women who bore his two children seems to be unaware of.
But what really bothers me is that all the arguments being made against Michael Shiavo can be used to contest a living will. "The surrogate is an adulterous cheater who doesn't deserve to make such a decision." "The person is not really in a persistence vegetative state." "Artificial feeding is not really artificial." Conservatives and the Republican Party entertaining such arguments disturb me to no end. This is enough to make me seriously consider leaving the GOP and becoming independent.
Hang in there for the discussion. A whole lot of conservatives and Republicans, such as myself, now have living wills for such a terrible possibility. Running from the debate at this time is ridiculous. And besides, where would you go? The Democrats or some 3 party with no real voice? Stay and fight for your own life choices, if for no other reason.
That's where we differ. As long as one is married to someone, he should be willing to put his life on hold for her as long as she is alive. If he's going to keep himself in the position of a husband carrying out his wife's wishes, then he needs to continue to be faithful to his vows. I don't care how the other relationship started, if he's having sex outside marriage, he's an adulterer. If he's having sex outside marriage, or even just pursuing a new relationship, he's no longer in the position of being Terri's husband. I don't blame him for moving on, but he should move on completely and relinquish control of Terri's remaining life. He's welcome to tell her new guardians that he thinks that Terri wanted not to be fed, but he shouldn't force that decision if he isn't living as her husband. As it was, his insistance on Terri's death was just ghoulish.
Bill