don't get me wrong, I thought that the situation was a human disaster....however, people make life and death decisions for other people every day and the governor of the state does not intervene....he can't.
I realize that this was a special situation....not unique by any means, but certainly unusual.
her own family, parents, tried to save her and were helpless to do so....I cannot see how the governor had ANY authority to intervene......would you like him to make a decision concerning your life....or death????.....not me, I'd rather count on my spouse to do so.....even though in this case, I thuink he erred seriously....very seriously.
Normally it should be the spouse. In this case I believe Michael had two reasons to want Terri dead; I think there was more money left than they would ever admit, and I think his fiancé wanted to marry.
It seems to me at some point it should have been obvious that her husband was not acting in her best interest and someone else needed to be appointed to make her decisions.
This is indeed an example of why one should be so careful about the character of the person they marry. It literally can be a life and/or death decision.
People were just followink orders... helpless to save the innocent...happens many times throughout history, when immoral and craven people are in positions of power and do nothing to save lives of the innocent. An old story.
I rest my case. Governors do have that executive power.