This happened with AIDS years ago, which, when redefined, included groups of people who did not even have to be HIV positive. This skewed not only the total number of people defined as having AIDS (which made for more grant money), but made it appear that significantly more heterosexuals were infected, making a disease which had been predominantly the provenance of homosexuals and needle junkies seem to be more widespread in the general population.
A lesson to be learned is that the terms included in a statute need to be statutorily defined, with great specificity, if need be, and the court must make expert witnesses adhere to these definitions.
Part of the increasing downside of the Orwellian conversion of the English language is that when 'bad means good and good means bad, confusion will inevitably result.
The standard for determining the patient's wishes should be raised, also.
If the patient signs a document which states that no extraordinary means should be used to prolong life, and the specific circumstances in which those mandates apply, that is one thing.
It is quite another to have the bar so low that those close to the patient can collect from the lawsuit and then remember the patient's desire to be terminated by withdrawal of life sustaining measures.
Were someone on a ventilator, they would not be stopped from breathing on their own should they be capable of doing so ( I would hope, anyway!). Terri should be allowed to try to swallow food (applesauce, Gerber's, whatever) and/or water, simply because she might be capable of doing so, and not need the tube.
Both the President and the Fla Gov are in between a rock and a hard place. If either overstep the legal boundaries of their offices, they will be branded as power hungry and having no respect for law (remember, to the DU types, Bush=Hitler,anyway.) If they do nothing, they will be branded as uncaring, for having let Terri die.
The only way Gov. Bush could intervene is to keep public order and remove parties who were in imminent danger, similar to evacuation in the face of a natural disaster or riot. Please, let me be most explicit. I AM NOT advocating a riot. But if such were to occur, there is a small chance, and only a small one that hydration could be administered intravienously during evacuation, and that would probably only prolong Terri's agony.
Extralegal measures such as internet death threats do nothing to strengthen the cause of life, only weaken it.
Ultimately, the decision must reside with the courts. And ultimately, the courts will have to be carefully examined to see what changes need to be made, especially in cases like this.
I agree with much of what you have said. What really bothers me most at this juncture is something you just mentioned and I posted on other other thread I started a few days ago [and I don't know why there has not been an outcry in editorials about this]:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1369633/posts?page=67#67
He & Michael Schiavo both belie their intent, motives, and prejudiced state of mind by not ordering the hospice to see FIRST if she could eat soft foods and drink by non-artificial means before carrying out the directive to pull the tube. Often, tube feeding is for the convenience of the hospice or home --- too labor intensive to feed by hand, especially if the disability precludes use of a cup or eating utensils.
Why didn't it ever occur to anyone to try! Now that the tube is pulled, how can it be lawful to not try to give her sustenance by non-artificial means. If a ventilator is pulled a person breathes or they don't. Air is present to be inhaled. If a feed tube is pulled, a patient should be presented water and food via a means to ingest it. In Terri's case, a sponge. Why? Because she did it before, and it hasn't been tried since. It may not work now, but how is it possible it has not been attempted as a last resort.