Replies

I think the first question and only question should be is Terri a PVS case?(persistent vegetative state ).If she is not than this is murder.

I think the problem with the Liberals go to the separation of powers clause .And also this might hurt there argument about abortion, imagine saving someones life. And finally because Republicans are for it than the liberalsknee jerk reaction is to be against it.
Again the liberals don't know the difference between right and wrong.

>>I think the first question and only question should be is Terri a PVS case?(persistent vegetative state ).If she is not than this is murder<<

With immediate cremation ordered after her death, we probably will never know. If the courts won't act to save her life, why would they act to determine the facts involved afterwards?

I agree that, politically, for the liberals, this all relates back to abortion.

As to your other point, even if Terri is a PVS case, I think this is murder because even if she is PVS, I think it must still be her (Terri's) desire to have the feeding tube disconnected. Since she did not have a living will, or anything else in writing, the Court accepted the testimony of her so-called "husband", her husband's brother and, I think, the brother's wife as proof of what Terri would want. In light of all the facts (ie, that Michael has lived with another woman for ten years and has two children with her)---taking their testimony as proof is, IMO, criminal.

As President Bush said, if we are to err, we should err on the side of life.

"I think the first question and only question should be is Terri a PVS case?(persistent vegetative state ).If she is not than this is murder."

Is she? I may be mistaken, But aren't her eyes open, and eyelids functioning? (Blinking) and some level of consciousness detectable?

That would indicate in a sane would that she is NOT a vegetable, and affirm the MURDER verdict.

How can these "people"(legislators,lawmakers) go on an Easter break, a religious holiday in honor of Life, (the birth of Christ) of a man who walked this earth and cherished the LIFE of all mankind, and their rights to live it in freedom, while this woman most certainly will die, being denied even the bare basic, water?

May God have NO MERCY on their souls, For they have forgotten that component of law themselves, and therefore should be denied that component of God's laws as well.

I think the first question and only question should be is Terri a PVS case?(persistent vegetative state ).If she is not than this is murder.

There are at least two questions, three if you change the scope of one of them.

whether Terri would choose to die by starvation, if she could make the choice (The patient's wishes regarding medical care RULE.)
spltting the above in two, if Terri would choose to die, and whether she would choose starvation as the manner of death. This raises the ethical issues regarding death by starvation under ANY circumstance.
whether Terri is in fact in a PVS. Amazingly, Terri's attorney at the trial level conceded this point; saying that there was no disagreement between the parties, that Terri was in fact in a PVS.

This case stands for the proposition of elevating judicial form over life and death substance.

I think the first question and only question should be is Terri a PVS case?(persistent vegetative state ).If she is not than this is murder.

Legally, perhaps. Morally I could argue the point. But won't this morning. I haven't thought it through enough yet.