Replies

"I think that was a strategic move so that she could record what was happening if somehow it got ugly, but also to provide bail or arrange for an attorney."

This is my point. All this talk about this being an effort to give water to Terri is a feint...there not only was no way possible to get in the hospital but Terri can't drink from a cup, she must take even her water via the tube. So let's quit portraying this as an effort to hydrate her, it was a publicity stunt from start to finish. Now I don't necessarily have problems with publicity stunts per se (this one was an A+), civil disobedience has a long and revered history in America starting with the Boston Tea Party.

However, I do have a problem with parents getting their kids involved in actions that could end up in confrontation, altercation or arrest. Children simply do not have the judgment to make decisions about getting involved in such things and parents should always err on the side of safety.

I agree the children can have compassion for Terri and they certainly can understand being starved to death. But do they understand the legal complexities of who has the right to make the call to remove care or life support? Do they understand the nuances of federal vs. state rights? Do they understand the issue of euthanasia (Soylent Green is PEOPLE!) All these are facets of this sad event.

I don't have a problem with people taking their children to peaceful rallies or marches. However, I think it is selfish of parents to stick signs in their kids hands, signs the kids neither created nor understand. On a very basic level this is exploiting the children, the image and concept of "innocence" for the sake of a photo op the parents could not duplicate on their own.