[Ohioan from Florida]

Killing a person and not devoting time, resources and labor to keeping them alive are not the same thing.

That's funny, I thought that when neglect leads to death it is considered murder. At least it is if I allowed that to happen to my pet, and I know I'd go to jail for that! Why are humans less worthy than our dogs and cats?

[supercat]

That's funny, I thought that when neglect leads to death it is considered murder. At least it is if I allowed that to happen to my pet, and I know I'd go to jail for that! Why are humans less worthy than our dogs and cats?

Actually, "not expending the resources to keep someone alive" is not necessarily criminal, if one's non-expenditure of resources is performed in such a way as to allow others to take over the responsibility.

For example, in Illinois, mothers who don't wish to expend the effort to keep their newborns alive can drop them off at hospitals or staffed fire stations and be free of further obligation.

What Michael is seeking to do, however, is not merely to absolve himself of responsibility (which he could easily do in any number of ways) but rather to actively prevent anyone else from taking over. The issue isn't that he doesn't want to provide care for Terri--it's that he doesn't want anyone to provide care for Terri.

[William Terrell]

Neglect isn't murder when the outside agencies are necessary to just keep a person alive when they ordinarily would have died. Reference Rev 9:6.

[William Terrell]

Neglect isn't murder when the outside agencies are necessary to just keep a person alive when they ordinarily would have died. Reference Rev 9:6.