Replies

>>the news from the Pope should be considered compelling evidence that could change how Greer ruled in her case, as local priests gave testimony that it was not against Catholic doctrine to oppose the withdrawal of feeding tubes when terminal.

AND

>>I'm a little surprised to see so many who do not understand the distinction between PVS and being terminal, comas, and such...

AND

>>people do not understand the difference between a terminal illness such as cancer

ummm, I'm missing your points about the phrase 'terminal'... are you saying Terri is clearly NOT terminal? (I would most certainly agree)

But Judge Greer, I'm sure feels otherwise, and he NEEDS to consider her 'terminal' in order to remove her nutrition. There were 2 or 3 tiny phrases added to state law around 1999 [senator King's legacy] that Greer is using.

One of these additions is vital to Judge Greer's actions against Terri: That one refers to an 'end of life condition' (ie: a 'terminal condition'), in which:

 
    1) the patient has suffered a significant loss of function,
    2) the patient can no longer feed him/herself, AND
    3) there is no compelling proof the patient can ever get better

Every person in Florida who meets 1+2+3 is a strong candidate for euthanasia!

although I have also heard it said that the 1999 law is being mis-interpreted by these courts...

Rep Fiorentino:

“This bill from 1999 was written for comatose individuals, not brain-damaged individuals. No person shall be deprived of any right because of race, religion, or physical disability.”
- posted on 10/20/2003 by Gelato

>>But Judge Greer, I'm sure feels otherwise, and he NEEDS to consider her 'terminal' in order to remove her nutrition. There were 2 or 3 tiny phrases added to state law around 1999 [senator King's legacy] that Greer is using.

One of these additions is vital to Judge Greer's actions against Terri: That one refers to an 'end of life condition' (ie: a 'terminal condition'), in which:

1) the patient has suffered a significant loss of function,
2) the patient can no longer feed him/herself, AND
3) there is no compelling proof the patient can ever get better <<

Do you know where those words are written in the statutes? I'm having trouble finding them. Obviously, I define the word "terminal" as in the end of her life. For hospice care, that period of time has been defined as six months or less. Since Terri was in a hospice situation for at least four years, she clearly doesn't fit the meaning of the word "terminal" the way hospice intended it. Or is hospice enough of a money-making venture that they are willing to "overlook" the intent? Certainly Mary Labyak would like to have it redefined.