Replies

Here's a goody from the Oprah Should Terri Life ro Die message board on Oprah site:

Terri is alive, disabled, and neglected
Posted by: angleena
Posted on: 11/11/2003 at 9:38pm (13 of 13)

Originally, advanced directives are for those who are concerned about not wanting to live under artificial means, the law is to protect there right to die. Advanced directives aren't made to protect someone's right to live, our constituition is already there. Therefore, Terri made her choice to live by NOT having advanced directives, she already has the constitution behind her. Only those that are concerned and want to also have the right to die need to bother with the advanced directives. I see no reason for someone who wants to live no matter what to have something in access of a the constituition but someone who wants to die needs to have something written out like advanced directives in order to give up their constitutional right. Terri never gave up her consititional right and no one should be able to take it away from her but her. If Terri was truly concerned about living and dieing, and if Mike really took her comments serious, they should have wrote something out right then and there. Failure to do so shows that Terri wasn't all that serious about any remark she made and Mike didn't take her all that serious. Terri did not make an informed choice, the law requires an informed choice. Stating "I wouldn't want to be kept alive that way" when watching a tv show is not an informed choice where someone has spelled all the pros and cons out to you. Let's not forget our constitutional right to live and our right to give up life through advanced directives. Let's not forget that the advanced directives is so someone can make an INFORMED decision.
As far as Terri's current condition is, she is disabled and that is all. She has a brain injury, she is not in a PVS state and she is not in a coma. Her mind is slow, it has been allowed to go dormat from lack of use and lack of stimulation thanks to her husband.

I might add, the person responsible for making choices for a disabled person should have there best interest in mind and not their own. Mike has indicated that Terri should die because he has decided "IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON WITH MY LIFE". His duty as guardian has nothing to do with his life, it's all about Terri's. Yet he is making this decision because he decided it's time to move on with, and I must make this clear, he has already moved on with his girlfriend and their 1 child and one on the way child.

Can Mike really act as an unbiased guardian as is required by law? NO!