[kenth]

I agree. This is part of my reasoning for an alternate violation of Terri's rights, although it will need some proof. Were the tables turned, and it were Michael Schiavo lying in that bed, would the courts have been so adamant in desire to see the wife keep control of him, in spite of her abandoning him for another man? Excepting, of course, wanting 'guardianship' to make sure he died? There may be some gender bias here too. But like I said, will need some proving.

The main tenet of her denial of rights is proven by the mere fact that she is being starved right now, on the basis that she's physically disabled.

Else perhaps a bunch of piss-ant do-gooders may consign me to the horror of years of suffering a living death in a hospital bed somewhere.

This is not about the right-to-die, although it's being perverted that way. This is about the right to kill another, based on their mental state. Based on the poster's ignorance, he/she might want to make a physical note to remember to not move to Florida.

[ladyjane]

Were the tables turned, and it were Michael Schiavo lying in that bed, would the courts have been so adamant in desire to see the wife keep control of him, in spite of her abandoning him for another man?

Interesting.

[syriacus]

Else perhaps a bunch of piss-ant do-gooders may consign me to the horror of years of suffering a living death in a hospital bed somewhere.

[irony and logic mode: ON]

But we are talking about Terri. Terri's condition was different than what you describe.

You needn't worry that Terri suffered a living death for years. Just ask her husband's lawyer, George Felos, and you'll see that he says this.

Felos has assured us, many times, even on national TV, that "Terri" was not inside Terri. He said she was not aware of anything.

So according to Mike Schiavo's own lawyer, Terri has not been "suffering a living death."

If Terri wasn't feeling anything, then she wasn't suffering, so why does Mike need to kill her?

[irony and logic mode: off]