[ruoflaw]

the law is on his side because those rotten judges seem to think that not only is MS Terri's next of kin, they also seem to think that she is his chattel. They seem to think that it is alright murder her based on heresay. Not only do they think her husband has the right to starve her to death, they want the State of Florida to sanction her murder.

[daylate-dollarshort]

"the law is on his side because those rotten judges seem to think that not only is MS Terri's next of kin, they also seem to think that she is his chattel. They seem to think that it is alright murder her based on heresay. Not only do they think her husband has the right to starve her to death, they want the State of Florida to sanction her murder."

Are you saying law is irrelevent?

In 1990, the Florida Supreme Court ruled in Estelle Browning v. Doris Herbert that patients have the right to refuse medical treatment, including artificial nutrition and hydration. The court also upheld a law that said people who can no longer communicate need only have told friends and family of their wishes not to be sustained by life support.

According to Florida law, MS is her next of kin. That holds true in most if not all states.

The point isn't whether or not her husband has the right to starve her to death, it is whether or not Teri Schiavo would wand to be sustained by life support ot artificial nutrition and hydration. The Court after hearing the testimony found "clear and convincing" evidence that Terri would not. His decision was appealed and a panel of judges reviewed the decision and concurred with the lower court. This procedure is often referred to as due process.

[cyn]

"Not only do they think her husband has the right to starve her to death, they want the State of Florida to sanction her murder."

And that's where, as a citizen of the State of Florida, I have a big problem with these proceedings.