[Clinging Bitterly]

It's a shame what's going on there. I looked at a couple of the videos, and she doesn't seem to be what I'd call comatose. I know that the comatose will sometimes display reflexive actions, sometimes even following movement with their eyes, but I see something more here. I see emotion, and I think she remains a feeling, self aware person.

She is more what I would call chronically infirm, or what another society once described with the horrible term "useless eater".

A few years ago, when my mother in law was suffering terminal cancer, she instructed us beforehand not to provide artificial nutrition when she could no longer eat or drink on her own. But that was a decision she was able to make on her own, in a better time.

A very long time ago, some of our neighbors who car pooled to work were involvd in a serious rollover crash. One of the men suffered permanent brain damage and persisted for years in a state of consiousness similar to what it looks like Terri is in. The only difference was he did regain the ability to be fed by mouth, but someone had to feed him, he could not eat on his own. Otherwise, he was paralyzed and unable to speak, but he could be strapped to a chair and taken places, and was quite often brought to our church and other events around town. He could interact, you could tell him a joke and he would smile, and so on, and he seemed to appreciate being alive (though it was impossible for him to directly answer the question).

His wife did divorce him after a few years, and I guess I can understand that, she needed a husband that could do most the things husbands usually do, but she never did totally abandon him, and certainly wouldn't have supported witholding the care which kept him alive, even though his death would have brought her financial benefits she could not receive while he remained alive.

So Terri is in a bad spot, she, as our old neighbor, didn't predirect the level of care she wanted to receive if she bacame seriously incapacitated, so she is at the mercy of whatever is decided by her legal guardian, currently her spouse. He could wash his hands of her, so to speak, by just divorcing her and letting her next of kin take over, and most probably wouldn't fault him for doing that. But there is gain to be had from her death, and he seems to be motivated by that. I can't think of another reason he'd be pushing for this change in her care that will cause her death. If that's the issue here, shame on him.

Dave in Eugene

[supercat]

A few years ago, when my mother in law was suffering terminal cancer, she instructed us beforehand not to provide artificial nutrition when she could no longer eat or drink on her own. But that was a decision she was able to make on her own, in a better time.

Another thing to consider is that in a case like that, preventing death from the disease once would leave the person alive, but with a diseased body that would soon fail again. By contrast, Terri--at least until her execution began--had no apparent terminal condition (much to the dismay of her husband).