It's a twisted paradox in this case that those for "compassion", and for rights, and for "Terri's interests" are for killing her. It's as though words are put into her mouth such that this fake, surrogate will of hers happens to coincide with Michael's interests. She has no written statement. Michael's word, judging by his character as deduced from his actions and police reports, cannot be trusted. The whole thing stinks.
Can't speak for everyone, but I don't care much about the ideological tug-o-war. I care that an innocent woman is going to be starved to death. We are all going to see this. Every day we'll be getting a report about Terri gradually weakening, her skin beginning to change texture and color. In all this, those of us who care about justice will be asking: What has this woman done to deserve this? What does she feel now? How does her throat feel, parched and dry? Does she have chest pains from her lungs losing moisture? WHY IS SHE BEING KILLED THIS WAY? WHY IS SHE BEING KILLED... AT ALL?
And who is next? And what form will the next narrowing of criteria for prerequisite to the right to life take?
Care to share where?
Michael's word, judging by his character as deduced from his actions and police reports, cannot be trusted.
Many courts have looked directly at this issue and disagree with you. That is your problem. I frankly don't know whether "Michael's word ... can[] be trusted" or not, but I know that courts have exhaustively looked directly at that issue and have (apparently) decided that the evidence is not strong enough to overturn the presumption that the husband will act in the best interests of his wife. I accept that.
I care that an innocent woman is going to be starved to death.
No, she can pick up a spoon and eat whenever she wishes (and is able). What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) "alive."
As one whose wife died 18 months ago from cancer amid great suffering, I am grateful for that deference being enshrined in the principles of our law. My wife told me what she wanted; she never wrote it down (because she was too sick to do so). I executed her wishes because I loved her so. I would not have wanted anyone (or group of well-meaning 'anyones') to come in and put her through more agony of chemotherapy when she wanted to go Home to be with her Lord.
Folks, too many here have lost sight of the situation and, most of all, that the critical decision is who should make that decision. The courts, after hearing almost endless, heartrending testimony have decided the husband should. I accept that.