Replies

I am sure her husband will get his wish and Terri will die, as he has the legal standing to control her, but I still don't trust his motives by him failing to provide her with proper rehabilitation, by him not allowing Terri's infections to be treated, and by him abandoning her for another woman. The marital contract comes with responsibilites as well as rights. He wants all the rights to control Terri, but feels no obligation to abide by his marital vows. What is even more tragic is her best friend said that Terri wanted a divorce - I know that is heresay, but evidently heresay now passes as fact, at least when Michael and his relatives speak.

I would agree that loving spouses should have the last say in these situations. But Michael's affections lie with his fiancee, and I don't see him as one who has Terri's best interests at heart - I feel her family does. IMO, Michael stays married to her so he can control her - his affections lie with another woman. He wants all the power that comes with being her husband, but feels no obligation to fulfill the responsibilies that go with the marriage contract - a truly loving husband would. Legally, Michael has standing - morally, he doesn't - he's made a mockery of his marriage.

I stand corrected on the partial birth abortion as I don't think most people in this country agree with it, but the fact that some people do is disturbing and the more our society continues to devalue human life, I fear that number will increase - I hope I'm wrong. But you are right - the problem, for now, is mainly in the courts.

Please understand, I appear to be the only freeper that hasn't been following this cases in detail. Thus, I am not sure as to who is right in this situation.

However, there is one thing that disturbs me greatly. I don't understand, from what I've read and seen, why Terri is considered to be in a vegetative state if she can respond to stimuli. From what I've read, she appears to respond to those around her. She appears to be able to eat, to some degree, if fed by hand. Although she is obviously severely brained damaged, she appears to be acting in a concise manner at times.

If this is true, how can the courts dismiss this behavior if there is any question in regard to it representing a feeling cognitive person? How can any physician, dismiss these actions as non-voluntary?

As for my brother, before he passed, he did open his eyes and make noises. However, he never focused on those around him, never responded to verbal requests, and never showed any response indicating he was conscious.

The doctors described his behaviors as actions directed from the brain stem; they stated the cognitive part of his brain was showing no signs of life.

Given this, shouldn't''t it be easy for Terri's physicians to measure the brain pattern reactions to external stimuli. I may be trivializing this matter greatly, but it sounds fairly easy to prove if she is showing any signs of conscious behavior.