Comatose woman will stop being fed (CNN lies, Terry not in a coma)

I would not want to live like that either. My husband would be the only one to know how I would like to live.

What if your husband, God forbid, tried to kill you, and just didn't succeed the first time? Would you wish that he be the one to decide to finish off the job?

Cordially,

My motto is "Error on the side of caution". How do you KNOW you wouldn't want to live like Terri unless you were in her position?? How would ANY of us know. Until she gets the therapy she deserves where maybe she could communicate her wishes, I say Error on the side of caution.

She is not comatose but any way you cut it, she does not have any form of meaningful mentation.

As you have no access to her de se knowledge, how do you know for certain that she has no "meaningful mentation" (whatever that means)? Second, what is the precise level of "meaningful" that justifies the killing a person by starvation?

If her now adulterous husband tried to kill her and by that attempt caused her injuries, would you still think that he should be be the one to make the decision to starve her to death?

Cordially,

First nothing is certain. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that fact is understood.

Second, as I assume you understand the meaning of "meaningful” you must therefore be unfamilair with the word mentation which means:

n : the process of thinking (especially thinking carefully)

The precise level of meaningful to justify killing someone by starvation, is legally, that level which, by the preponderence of the evidence, given by acknowledged experts, is found to be such. That is to say, it is that which in the opinion of experts, is not meaningful. I would suggest that a moral level, would be that, which was acsertained by a surrogate, charged to make such an evaluation, on behalf of someone who is incapacitaed to the point of being unable to do so for him/herself.

If an adulterous husband, had been convicted of trying to kill her, and by that attempt caused her injuries, I would not think that he should be be the one to make the decision to starve her to death?

Finally my certainty with respect to my judgement of the woman, comes from observations of her, provided to me by her family and the media, and the expertise of dealing with many such patients over the past 25 years. I hope that clarifies the matter for you.

I am not at all surprised that CNN has taken such a stance. Killing for convenience is the logical progression of abortion on demand. They will continue to advance the premise that the prerogatives of God should be usurped by liberals.

Thanks for your response. I do have several thoughts and concerns.

First nothing is certain.

Are you certain of that? (just kidding:^)

I do understand the meaning of the word, "mentation". The problem is that mentation itself as you define it is impossible to measure with biological or physical measurements of any kind UNLESS you assume a person's mentation is ALWAYS manifested in the brain. The presumption of these 'experts' to whom you refer is that mentation must manifest itself in the brain's electrical and chemical activity. But mentation itself takes place, according to the Lord Jesus Christ, apart from the brain and without manifesting itself in the brain - at least not always in the brain. Some Biblical examples of mentation separated from a physical brain are these - "Lazarus come forth" - the Lord speaks to a man whose brain has rotted for four days. So how does Lazarus 'hear' these words of the Lord Jesus if his mentation is only manifested in his brain?

Another example would be the rich man's conversation with Abraham after his death - the rich man's brain is completely rotted yet he mentates and communicates after his death. If the soul disembodied can mentate then why can't the soul mentate when it is united to the body without using the brain as a place of manifestation of its thoughts? Thus, there is the undeniable possibility that a person whose brain is not manifesting mentation at the present time is still communicating with God in prayer and this activity is not manifested in the brain's cells since the Lord who is spirit can communicate directly to a person via the spirit without use of the brain itself.

The precise level of meaningful to justify killing someone by starvation, is legally, that level which, by the preponderence of the evidence, given by acknowledged experts, is found to be such. That is to say, it is that which in the opinion of experts, is not meaningful. I would suggest that a moral level, would be that, which was acsertained by a surrogate, charged to make such an evaluation, on behalf of someone who is incapacitaed to the point of being unable to do so for him/herself.

As to the experts, experts that are acknowledged by WHOM? Why do these acknowledgers of the experts hold weight as to why they would be the best judges of who experts are about mentation?

But even more disturbing to me is the apparent endorsement of the power of courts and doctors to actively KILL a patient (who has not been convicted of any crime) based on arbitrary, subjective, changing standards and third party opinions, when the RIGHT TO LIFE is in fact, INALIENABLE. In other words, how can an INALIENABLE right to life be subject to the opinions of so-called experts? The key words here to which I am referring are in our original charter; namely, "inalienable" and "endowed by their Creator".

Once you do not believe there is a Creator then there are no unalienable rights and there is no endowment of any right except by the whim of the raw tooth and claw evolution. It's one thing to say that YOU would not want to "live like that", but by what principle should a third party have the power to substitute his judgment in order to execute a person who has committed no crime? Keep in mind that I am speaking here about nutrition and hydration, which cannot be rightfully be considered as extraordinary medical treatment because these are the ordinary and necessary means of EVERYONE for maintenance of life.

If there is some imagined right to kill a disabled, non-termianlly ill patient because of the notion that there is such a thing as a life not worth living, then why not go ahead endorse them smothering her with a pillow, or putting a bullet in the back of her head? Why inflict upon her such an agonizing death by starvation?

Cordially,