"just suppose that Terri's guardian does not have her best interests at heart? Claims to that effect are precisely why this has been an issue "for years."
I do agree with you on this point but don't we have to trust the process of the courts on this one? The 10 years spent on this case? I do not see the courts making a hasty decision on this woman's life. But I did see that in the legislature.
Thank you for the good argument on this. You seem pretty level headed. Worthy of debate
LOL
:)
I do agree with you on this point but don't we have to trust the process of the courts on this one? The 10 years spent on this case? I do not see the courts making a hasty decision on this woman's life. But I did see that in the legislature. Within those 10 years, Terri Schaivo's feeding tube was removed one other time that I'm aware of, and was reinserted by court order. Clearly the questions have been bouncing around for a long time.
With the current case, there were a number of what appear to be significant irregularities, both with Michael Schaivo and the judge. There are real and significant questions about the propriety of the decisions being made.
You're decrying a "hasty decision" by the legislature; however, the fact was that Terri Schiavo had only days to live. Presented with reasonable doubt, would you have had them move at a stately pace, only to see their deliberations rendered moot by the death they might have voted to prevent?
" I do not see the courts making a hasty decision on this woman's life. But I did see that in the legislature." To paraphrase Goldwater (IIRC):
"Haste in taking a life is not a virtue, haste in preserving life is not a vice."