No doubt I'm missing something here: Who would wish to continue living in this condition? The reason so many people have living wills is because they want to avoid being condemned to such an existence. People in apparently-similar conditions, including very bad looking brain scans, have on occasion recovered substantially from such conditions given the right treatments; the brain is at times amazingly capable of regrowth. Unfortunately, we'll never know what therapy might have done for Terri because her HINO has prevented her from receiving any.
If therapy had been tried and proven incapable of producing any improvements, then it might be reasonable to begin to ask your question. But until then, no way.
If I were her husband, I would do the same thing. My wife, on the few occasions we have discussed it, has shunned the idea of being kept alive via any artificial means. I suspect most reasonable persons harbor similar sentiments. Who can blame them? A life stripped of all dignity is not worth living.
Again, all that is known is that Terri's HINO has worked to prevent any improvement in her condition. Put a healthy person in solitary confinement for thirteen years, forbid visitors for months at a time, and see how they feel about life then.
If Terri's life is miserable, it is in significant measure because Michael has deliberately worked to make it so. To allow him to then use such misery as an excuse to kill his wife is obscene.
As I stated, there must be something I'm missing. What's the source of all the commotion?
A few things:
- Twenty-six-year-olds generally do not collapse of cardiac arrest for no apparent reason. Many here think there's something fishy about her original collapse, especially considering affidavits from relatives indicating she was afraid of her husband and wanted to divorce him.
- At a malpractice trial, Terri was awarded $750K for rehabilitation and her husband awarded $300K for loss of consortium. These award were given after Terri's husband testified his intention to stay with Terri and rehabilitate her, and his doctors testified that, while brain-damaged, she could be expected to live a reasonably normal-lifespan.
- The only evidence of Terri's wish to die is hearsay by her husband and in-laws.
- Terri's survival of infections and an earlier starvation attempt suggest she has a strong will to live.
- Terri's husbamd has actively worked to prevent any therapy or treatment that might allow her condition to improve.
- Terri's husband has actively worked to prevent her from being taught to accept food and liquid orally, or even from being tested to see if she can do so without training.
- Terri's husband is using the fact that Terri needs to be tube-fed as justification for killing her, despite the fact that no efforts have been made to see if her need for the feed tube stems from anything other than his refusal to let her take food or liquid by mouth.
- Judge Greer allowed George Felos, her husband's attourney, to dismiss her guardian ad litem and has refused to appoint another. The $750K in her trust fund has not been used for rehabilitation, but $300K of it has been used to pay lawyer George Felos to try to have her killed.
- Terri's husband lives with another woman, has fathered two children by her, and calls her his fiancée.
- Terri's husband has ordered that Terri (Catholic) not be given communion, on the grounds that it might "agitate" her. [how?]
Need I go on?
- Absent a living will, we must assume the afflicted party wishes to remain alive at all costs - regardless of contrary testimony by a spouse?
How about kept alive at least to the extent that there is someone willing to pay for it, or money specifically earmarked for such purpose (the 750K)? I see no reason why a husband who acts so cruelly toward his wife should deserve one penny of the money which was put in trust for her rehabilitation and which refusese to spend for such purpose.
- There should be no living wills?
If people wish to put their wishes in writing, that's one thing. But to allow someone with a clear conflict of interest to remember a request not to be sustained on tubes only when such a statement suits his interest, and to regard such hearsay as "clear and compelling evidence" of intention is just plain wrong.
Or is it something else? Seriously, I don't get it.
Does the above help?
Thank you for your reply. This clears things up and reinforces my view that one is much better off watching Spongebob in the morning than the news: the media has presented this couched in the simplest, crudest terms of "Right To Die Vs No Right To Die."