Replies

The prohib against murder includes self. That can be established from Scripture as well.

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.

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."

You are incorrect in this statement. Judge Greer has ruled that she is to be starved- no food or water is allowed. Now you tell me how that is humane.

Care to share where?

Sure.

1 John 5:16 [KJV] If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

And, as aready cited, the following:

Exodus 20:13 [KJV] Thou shalt not kill.

Keeping with sound hermeneutics, one can look at the character of those in Scripture who committed suicide. You can do that on your own if you like. You will not find a single believer who did this. Finally, the burden of proof rests on you to show that Exodus 20:13 does not apply to the self.

The courts, after hearing almost endless, heartrending testimony have decided the husband should. I accept that.

You feel nothing, knowing that Terri, who is not terminal, will be dying a slow, painful death, her life ebbing away, hour by hour? That does not bother you? You won't spend any time thinking about the pain she is in?

BTW I feel for you for the loss of your wife to cancer. That is a truly horrific disease, esp. in its most aggressive forms. It is no respector of persons. My own wife lost her father two weeks ago to small-cell lung cancer. He hid his disease from us and did not seek treatment, so his death appeared to happen suddenly. My grandpa died from metastatic colon cancer, as did an aunt. All had chemo, and morphine near the end. I have no quarrel with that - the morphine is intended to ease pain and will sometimes hasten death. They were terminal.

Terri is not terminal, however, except in the sense that we all are. You can be sure Terri will not be offered any food or drink on a tray while her life slowly ebbs away. Clearly the intent is her demise.

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.

The other aspect of this, the courts... No sardonic tone is intended here, but bave the courts ever done anything to shake our confidence in their adherence to the Constitution? Have their collective actions over the last few decades aroused any suspicions about an underlying agenda? To be blunt, have the American courts, taken as an aggregate, shown themselves trustworthy as weighed on the Constitutional scale?

These questions provide a substrate for much of the second-guessing of the court decisions in this particular case.