[eccentric]

The truth has a way of presenting itself. I just pray it does in time for Terri.

I have been encouraging people to listen to Insight for Living on the radio or internet. Chuck Swindol has been teaching about the story of Esther and yesterday's sermon was RIGHT ON TARGET!

[cajungirl]

Here is what is bothering me.

This whole case is fraught with misinformation and confusion. The public is all involved, judges, now congress.

To me the central question is that if she did not have her wishes known {I have my doubts that living wills anticipate any and all of the circumstances anyway}, but if she did not, we assume that a spouse is the person who could be a stand in. I trust absolutely my husband to do that. But I trust the husband I am living with now.

So is Michael the husband that she might have trusted, is he the same husband that would logically make these kinds of decisions. All the evidence is that he is not. So his status as the guardian is very iffy in my mind.

If my husband were living another life, with another woman, I would not trust him to make decisions in my interest. That bothers me a lot, that he is the driving force, using the law and assumptions about his dedication to her best interests, assumptions that the law makes, that may be totally wrong. I also have great problems with withholding food and water. I would rather, if that is what is to be done, to have active euthanasia. But nobody can know, really, what this woman would want. And nobody being able to say that with certainty means to me, that the choice should be to preserve life, do therapy and hope for the best. She does not appear to be suffering.