Michael alleges that Terry made comments indicating she would not want to be nourished via feeding tube.
Friends relate that Michael made statements to the effect,
'She's 26 years old. Why would we have talked about that?'
My observation:
Why would the conversation have led to the distinction between "life support" and "feeding tubes"?
How did she get in this condition?
He asserts that it was a "Heart attack" brought on by a "Chemical imbalance".
I ask, 'Where is the medical history of ANY other persons encountering 'heart attack via chemical imbalance', at the age of 26, given an otherwise healthy patient?
Why has there been no law enforcement review of this case, relating to "cause"?
The "husband" should not be able to block review of his culpability!
***Why would the conversation have led to the distinction between "life support" and "feeding tubes"? ***
That distinction has bothered me all along. Many of us have said that if we are truly brain dead and have absolutely no signs of life, we'd rather not be hooked up to a machine. But how many of us would want to be starved to death when we are conscious and can feel the pain?
She wasn't healthy. She had lost more than a hundred pounds very quickly and had anorexia and bulimia. As is common in people with eating disorders, she had a dangerously low potassium level. People with eating disorders like that do have heart attacks.