Replies

I thought I knew a LITTLE about the way our govt works. Guess that's exactly what I know, because I'm still bewildered that right-to-die applies to a woman who wasn't dying when they started to exercise that right on her behalf.
And btw, it does seem odd that an appeals court would ORDER Greer to do anything. I thought a judge is free to change his mind if he pleases, just call another hearing, listen awhile, and proceed to reverse himself.
Do we need a new federal law here, just because some folks won't heed the existing laws? Someone is trying to end Terri's life because she is disabled; no other reason (motives aside). That's contrary to law. She left no written directive, isn't that required? If a guardian has the power to end a disabled, non-terminal person's life, he shouldn't be. It's just wrong.

>> I'm still bewildered that right-to-die applies to a woman who wasn't dying...

It is certainly puzzling -- and obnoxious! This is literally a case of the guardian killing his ward. There is no "right to die" question involved. That's propaganda, a smokescreen to cover a clinical execution.

We emphatically need new federal and state protections against the abuse of legal guardianship. Michael Schiavo has turned his guardianship into total, cruel domination of a wife I believe he once beat within an inch of her life. He has abused her, withheld treatment, stolen the money for her therapy, and tried repeatedly to murder her by dehydration. He has the power to do it as things stand! -- the power to order doctors and nurses around, and even give judges unpalatable choices. Those are all matters crying for sharp reform. Terri needs an ombudsman -- someone disinterested who will speak for her and protect her from those bent on harming her.

Do we need a new federal law here, just because some folks won't heed the existing laws?

Yes. I think we need a right to life amendment to the US Constitution spelling out absolute minimums for protection of innocent lives without implying that these are maximums.