A husband is exercising his state-law-given right to make life or death decisions about his incapacitated wife. Law isn't about bringing heaven on earth. People have free will to make the wrong decisions. We can't legislate wrong decisions away in a republic. God will judge Michael for his decision.
"A husband is exercising his state-law-given right to make life or death decisions about his incapacitated wife"
No, he gave that right to the courts. The courts are now using power that shouldn't be in the first place.
By giving this order to a sympathetic court, Michael avoided a direct "Schinlder v. Schaivo" even though we know that's the battle lines.
Instead of being able to bring Michael to court, the Schindlers have to fight the courts themselves!
This is putting life and death in the hands of a judge. This is wrong.
Not exactly. The husband is carrying out his wife's wishes to be starved to death. Spouses have no right to make medical decisions for one another. Medical decisions are strictly an individual prerogative. In this case, since the patient's wishes weren't in writing, a court determined the patient's wishes, to the standard of clear and convincing, taking testimony from several people. The husband does not automatically win this evidentiary exploration. He did in this case.
His state given right trumps her God given Constitutional right to life?
Exercising life and death decisions by a spouse is for the benefit of the incapacitated spouse. What benefit is Terri getting from being starved to death?
If she was on life support, which she is NOT I could somewhat understand if heroic and extraordinary methods were being employed to keep this woman alive. It would be a tough and heart-wrenching decision. But this is not the case. The woman is being starved to death plain and simple. This will be the only reason for her death.
On her death certificate,if she perishes this way, it should read: Cause of Death: Starvation by Husband.