Replies

'This has been going on for 13 years. Why not allow therapy for 6 months out of those thirteen years?'
.........................

There is not one good reason unless you simply do not want to give someone the chance to improve. The token therapy session granted by Judge Greer in the other case which was presented in this article in an attempt to show his compassion to the man's wife was really the same as allowing no therapy at all.

And notice here that the wishes of the spouse in this case were trumped by the rest of the family even though we have been treated to a barrage of comments in the Shiavo case about the rights of husbands and wives to make these decisions for one another.

Decisions like these are being made by judges all over the country. The truth is, this is about euthanasia and true believers and the daily judicial decisions that further the 'cause' of making it accepted in mainstream America....and it does appear to be working.

Forty years ago, you would have been hard pressed to find anyone who would think that providing water and food to the infirmed was extraordinary care. From recent polls, the concept of starving and dehydrating people to death has now been accepted by a good many of us as a 'compassionate' way to 'allow' death. The buzzwords abound, but if this horror constitutes 'death with dignity', you could sure fool me.

The bottom line on Judge Greer is that his blindness doesn't matter one bit, and neither does the fact that he is widely considered to be a conservative, religious and conscientious good guy.

The bottom line on Greer is that he has refused to treat MS's conflict of interest and marital abandonment as any indication of an ulterior motive.

The fact that there IS NO WRITTEN STATEMENT from Terri herself makes all the questionable motive aspects of this case so absolutely compelling.

If there's something Greer knows that he ain't telling that makes him still think Terri ought to die, he sure ought to share it with her family. Otherwise, when in doubt, DON"T.

"And notice here that the wishes of the spouse in this case were trumped by the rest of the family even though we have been treated to a barrage of comments in the Shiavo case about the rights of husbands and wives to make these decisions for one another."

Excellent point. The spouse in that case was female and the family trumped her wishes. The spouse in this case is male and he trumps the family's wishes.