Replies

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?

I agree.

Besides-I still love the comment a poster made about how judges who are facing a grumbling and unhappy person as a result of following the law, usually say "You don't LIKE the law, then CHANGE IT!'

And, is EXACTLY what the legislators and govenor DID per the WILL of the people.

It's called PUTTING the SPIRIT back into the law. It is called representative government. And it is the way we correct LAWS that are not deliberate enough to cover the rights of ALL PARTIES involved.

Now there is a LAW in Florida, that MINUS a written directive or living will, PROTECTS a person from family members who might be unscrupulous-LIARS!