"The critical issue is this: Do the authorities have the right to force feed somebody who does not want to be forcibly fed - even if that means they may die?
I believe that issue has been previously decided and the answer is that they don't have that right. It is also not the critical question here. The question is has it been established what her wishes were. Of course at the time she was competent to consider this question the law in Florida did not include feeding tubes as life support machinery.
I believe that issue has been previously decided and the answer is that they don't have that right. It is also not the critical question here. The question is has it been established what her wishes were. Of course at the time she was competent to consider this question the law in Florida did not include feeding tubes as life support machinery.
Do the authorities have the right to refuse oral food and hydration to someone who might be able to accept it?
The denial of all food and hydration is absolutely positively 100% guaranteed to kill any person, no matter how healthy, unless they are allowed to receive food and water before they are fatally starved or dehydrated.
"The critical issue is this: Do the authorities have the right to force feed somebody who does not want to be forcibly fed - even if that means they may die?
No. that is not the critical issue at all. It is simply this: Will the "authorities of the greatest and most charitable country in the world, keep the feeding tube that sustained the life of a helpless woman, yanked away from her so that she may die for the convenience of her former husband and lover.
Terri has never told the courts what she wants. Hearsay is not permitted except in this case and there is conflicting hearsay at that.