[kenth]

You don't seem to see the conservative principle at work here. We have a basic one, it's that the rights of the individual not be violated.

The courts, on hearsay evidence, sided with the husband who has a vested financial and adulterous interest in Terri's death. Going against Terri's rights as protected by Article 1, Section 2 of the Florida State Constitution, the court ordered that Terri's life may be subject to the whims of another person. Getting married does not confer ownership and a loss of rights, regardless of disability which is stated unequivocally in the aforementioned section.

This is not a right-to-die case, wherein one makes their own request, this is a right-to-kill case, in which one person is asking the courts the authority to kill another.

[Dog Gone]

This is not a right-to-die case, wherein one makes their own request, this is a right-to-kill case, in which one person is asking the courts the authority to kill another.

I disagree somewhat with statement. Most people do not have a directive to physicians, or Living Will, and family members make these decisions in hospitals every day in this country. They make the decision to pull the plug, the hospitals respect it, and the courts never get involved.

This case has a lot of unique factors which have made it very controversial, but we let family members kill family members without their permission in a hospital setting all the time.