[GodBlessRonaldReagan]

the courts can resolve the matter. That's not a great option. But do we really want politicians -- with their own agendas and ambitions -- deciding who lives and who dies?

Yeah, like judges don't have agendas and ambitions...

[Always Right]

Her life -- what there is of it -- has become a prop in an especially grotesque bit of public theater. Right-to-lifers have made her a poster child for their belief that Big Government, not families and their doctors, should resolve painful questions of life and death.

What a crook of crap. Her family wants her to live. Its only the slimeball alledged abusive husband who has squandered away hundreds of thousands of dollars that was supposed to be for Terri and who now has a new honey, who wants to kill Terri. Until Terri can speak for herself, it should be her loved ones who make the decision, not some guy who is motivated to get Terri out of the picture.

[JulieRNR21]

You forgot the (BARF ALERT).

Gleckman just doesn't 'get it'......there is no evidence that Terri wants to die....she has demonstrated a strong will to live...she survived 6 days of dehydration & starvation!

Even liberal Lawyer Alan Dershowitz says the court erred & she should be allowed to live & given to her family's care!

[GovernmentShrinker]

A yawning ethical, legal, and theological gulf exists between allowing someone to die and acting to hasten their death, a la Dr. Kevorkian.

Indeed. The latter is far more humane than slow starvation/dehydration.

[tallhappy]

The bigots come out on issues like this and can't help showing their bigotry.

The visceral hatred for people who respect life is out there and held by a lot of people. Usually they are able to hide their bigotry and seething hatred. But issues like this bring it out.

[JesseHousman]

Gleckman is a senior correspondent in BusinessWeek's Washington bureau.

Gleckman is one of many reasons I stopped reading BW years ago. They have an agenda other than business.

[Cicero]

Deliberately starving someone by court order isn't the same as "letting them die." Especially when the husband has forbidden the nursing home to make any effort to rehabilitate Terri or get her to swallow food.

That's presumably one reason why the husband's lawyer refused to let the priest give her Holy Communion when it looked as if she were on the point of death.

[Tribune7]

There is no living will as to what she wants done. The parents want here alive. The husband wants her dead. If all who loved her agreed as to what's best we would never have heard about her.

Reports that have come out that she was denied therapy, that was denied last rites etc. have made her look sympathetic and have raised suspicions in many -- including me -- that those who want to do her in are motivated by wish for a convenient end rather than concern for her best interest.

Those who accuse Terri's defenders of having a "political agenda" should look at themselves first.

[longtermmemmory]

If I had been the court appointed attorney ad litem I would have a real issue over therpy not having even been tried while the case works its way through the system.

There should have also been a visitation schedule set up by agreement of the parties and signed off by the judge as a matter of family harmony.

[netmilsmom]

>>People get very sick. And after agonizing talks with doctors and friends, often after prayer, families make the painful decision about whether to continue artificial means to keep a loved one alive<<

This is the difference. If one takes the normal case of "no code" or "no heroics", and left with a feeding tube, that person will still die. Terri would not.

I heard the doctor who was nominated for a Nobel on with ManCow when he was subbing for Savage. Although Mancow continually interupted him, trying to be funny or cute (geez), the doctor still got the point across that Terri is NOT sick. Pulling that tube is the only thing that will kill her.

[Darnright]

>A yawning ethical, legal, and theological gulf exists between allowing someone to die and acting to hasten their death, a la Dr. Kevorkian.

Yes, it does. However, allowing someone to die, does not include withholding food and water from the patient. Starvation and dehydration are deliberate acts which cause the death of the person. I love the way the Culture of Death is trying to brainwash the general public into an acceptance of the above-mentioned deliberate murder as a passive act.