[billbears]

I feel a lot safer that the family, whether or not we necessarily like Michael, is making the decision versus the national government making the decision and enforcing their current view. Current law, however right or wrong it may be, allows the family to make the decision right now and it was upheld. If we allow this first case to be controlled either way by the national government you are starting down a very slippery slope.

I think that so many that have gotten emotional over this need to step back and think what may happen from a precedent standpoint and who you want making the decision for you at this time.

[inquest]

Either way, the family would be making the decision. In fact, the decision to keep her fed would be supported by people who are more "family" than the adulterous husband who wants her to die.

[UCANSEE2]

That is not the only issue on the table.
The issues are many, but to keep it simple...

Is Terri PVS and should PVS be in the law under the NOT AWARE statute that allows death by dehydration and starvation?

Do we have other laws that allow killing the elderly when they really aren't TERMINALLY ILL?

Was there criminal or manslaughter evidence in what happened to Terri, and why was the evidence withheld by the Judge and the DCF?

Michael may not have caused Terri's collapse. It is evident from his testimony he did nothing about it for around an hour to an hour and a half. Negligent Homicide?