Replies

It's a dangerous abuse of power alright, but it isn't the lawmakers and the governor who are abusing it.

I am coming to the thread very late but have been following this story since long before it became well-known. While I sympathize with Terri's parents I do not welcome the entrance of government into this. This decision should be left to patient's families in consultation with physicians, not to politicians with agendas on both sides. Maybe the right decision will be made this time, but other times will come and the government will eventually screw it up.

But, what happens when there is much evidence that the government (ONE judge, that is) HAS already screwed it up?

Who protects the innocent when the "family" (that is, a "husband" who is trying to kill his wife) IS the one "screwing" up?

If a husband is beating huis wife or kids, the STATE is legally required to step in. In a clear suicide case - where the "victim" is actively trying to kill himself, the state is STILL required to step in a prevent to suicide.

Here, the ONLY "evidence" that she wanted a DNR order is the husband trying to kill her.

The entry, as you say, of the legislative and executive branches of the government into this case was at the DEMAND of the governed (you know, we the people and all that) that they perform one of the few functions that they are commissioned to do by the Constitution, which is to protect the right to life of citizens.

What you are suggesting is that it is the right of a family (or in this case a "spouse" with blatant conflicts of interest) to make a determination about whether a person's "quality of life" is such that they can be justifiably terminated. The "government" from the courtroom had already WAY overstepped its bounds by, in effect, ruling that murder is acceptable in some instances. By what other means would you suggest that the courts, a branch of government, by the way, be reined in? Or are you one of those people who thinks it is perfectly okay to redefine "life" for political and economic expediency?

This is not an individual who is terminally ill and there have been conflicting medical opinions regarding Terri's capacity to be rehabilitated. She is not in a coma and being sustained by artificial means. We are not talking about someone who is brain dead and on a ventilator, who has a written directive regarding the use of such measures. We are talking about a realtively young woman who responds to her environment and who seems to have an amazing will to live in spite of all the efforts to kill her. She has been denied the most basic therapies and even treatment for illness over the past 10 years. The monster who poses as a husband (despite having another "family,") has denied her even basic sensory stimulation and hygiene.

I say thank God for Governor Bush and the legislators actually listening to the will of the people and thank God that there are still some of us who can tell the difference between forcing someone to live who is dying and killing someone who is fighting to live. Had Governor Bush not done what he did, as a man of conscience and as someone in a position of authority, her blood would have been on his hands. He has the power to pardon a murderer on death row, but no authority to stay the execution of a woman who has done nothing wrong? Isn't there anything about that that seems distorted to you?