Trinity_Tx is right though. This is a "patient controls their own body" case. The court found (wrongly, IMO), that Terri would starve herself to death if she was given a choice.
Those who recoil at what is going on with Terri are bothered on several, separable points. On the legal point of using evidence other than an advance written directive, the law permits taking evidence from people who know the patient. The problem with the combination of an advance directive and the course of action/inaction taken here (killing by starvation), is that many people who compose advance directives don't foresee the possibility that their own words will be misconstrued as authorization to be starved to death. To be accurate, some do desire to be starved to death, but it's not what people normally expect will happen. The normal thought is "I'm dying from trauma, accident, cancer or disease, and am going to die in a few hours or days anyway, so in that case, just take me off the machine and let my body go." But people don't assume or think, normally, until this case opened their eyes, that doctors would use the denial of food and water to cause death of a person that isn't hooked up to anything else.
Anyway, there are both legal issues (what consititutes sufficient evidence, and how to correct a rogue trial court); and ethical issues (is it ethical to starve an otherwise healthy body to death). Again, it is legal for a person to starve themself to death. You can do that starting today if you want. It is legal. But nobody else is permitted to do that for you.
"Those who recoil at what is going on with Terri are bothered on several, separable points. On the legal point of using evidence other than an advance written directive, the law permits taking evidence from people who know the patient. The problem with the combination of an advance directive and the course of action/inaction taken here (killing by starvation), is that many people who compose advance directives don't foresee the possibility that their own words will be misconstrued as authorization to be starved to death. To be accurate, some do desire to be starved to death, but it's not what people normally expect will happen. The normal thought is "I'm dying from trauma, accident, cancer or disease, and am going to die in a few hours or days anyway, so in that case, just take me off the machine and let my body go." But people don't assume or think, normally, until this case opened their eyes, that doctors would use the denial of food and water to cause death of a person that isn't hooked up to anything else."
"Anyway, there are both legal issues (what consititutes sufficient evidence, and how to correct a rogue trial court); and ethical issues (is it ethical to starve an otherwise healthy body to death). Again, it is legal for a person to starve themself to death. You can do that starting today if you want. It is legal. But nobody else is permitted to do that for you."
Cboldt, this is SO well said, and you make SO many excellent points in your posts on this thread...and make them so succinctly.
Hopefully your clear, reasoned insight will open a few tightly shut eyes. I thank you for what you've written on this case.
Thank you. : )
I wish they'd push for everyone to have advance directives, and then tighten up the standards.
Back when Terri collapsed, advance directives were very rare.
Terri will be a heroine if it draws attention to the issue and people make their wishes known who might have otherwise been wrongly treated.
It may be defined as such (by Felos et al.), but I think the reality is that all this talk of Terri's "wishes" and of her "controlling her own body" is just a way of sugar coating her murder. I don't think I'd be nearly so frustrated and angry about the whole deal if those getting away with killing Terri would just be HONEST about it for a change. (In case you missed it: Michael did admit to Larry King over the weekend that he does not know what Terri wanted.)