[GovernmentShrinker]

I've seen her father quoted as saying she CANNOT swallow, though he believes she might be able to learn to with therapy. Way to much conflicting information floating around, and that's why the law needs to provide for an utterly objective evaluation of the medical facts.

If Terri had actually left a written living will stating she would want to have food/water withdrawn under these circumstances, then I'd be all for withdrawing them. Though I'd much prefer the euthanasia option, which isn't currently available. I wouldn't want to be kept alive in her condition, but I'd sure prefer to be sent off with one quick injection, than to starve/dehydrate slowly. I don't believe the government has the right to take over citizens lives and impose its values on them. But Terri didn't leave a will, and in other cases the patient is a child born brain damaged who obviously could never have indicated its wishes, and the methdology the law currently provides for certifying a next-of-kin's decision is hopelessly flawed.

[Lauren BaRecall]

I've seen her father quoted as saying she CANNOT swallow, though he believes she might be able to learn to with therapy. Way to much conflicting information floating around, and that's why the law needs to provide for an utterly objective evaluation of the medical facts.

Yes, there *is* too much conflicting info out there. I do not trust the objectivity of many sources. There was a lot of testimony from objective doctors, stating that Terri is not in a persistant vegetative state, and she can be rehabilitated. This comprises a portion of the court records, but Greer purposely ignored it, as does much of the media.

...but I'd sure prefer to be sent off with one quick injection, than to starve/dehydrate slowly.

I can understand your aversion towards torture. :o)

...and in other cases the patient is a child born brain damaged who obviously could never have indicated its wishes, and the methdology the law currently provides for certifying a next-of-kin's decision is hopelessly flawed.

How so?

[shhrubbery!]

I've seen her father quoted as saying she CANNOT swallow.

Doesn't matter whether Terri can swallow or not.

I understand you did not bring the topic up. But since it's been brought up (again), what exactly IS the point of people who think that "to swallow, or not to swallow" makes the difference between someone who should be "allowed" to live, and someone who should be starved to death?

This lovely young woman, whose name is Maria Tetto, cannot swallow. She suffered severe brain damage and, like Terri, was pronounced hopeless by doctors. Her parents persisted, and after six years of intensive therapy, she can now talk, tell jokes, laugh, and write in her journal.

But she cannot swallow and has to be fed via feeding tube, just as Terri is.

Should she be starved to death?

[texgal]

I've seen her father quoted as saying she CANNOT swallow, though he believes she might be able to learn to with therapy. Way to much conflicting information floating around, and that's why the law needs to provide for an utterly objective evaluation of the medical facts.

There are affidavits from nurses who cared for Terri in the past who did say that they did spoon feed her jello against Michael's wishes. The nurses said that she could and did swallow. She simply may have to learn how to again.

Where's the harm in giving her the opportunity to do so? The questions we should all be asking is why does her "loving" husband want her dead.

If the jerk wants to leave her then he should do so - he already has. Her parents have said that they will give him all the money if he will simply leave Terri's guardianship to them. What possible motive does he have for wanting her dead other than the fact that she most likely can regain the ability to communicate and possibly implicate him in her initial injury.

Send a letter to the AG and ask them to investigate what caused Terri's initial injuries. There was no real investigation into that.