Replies

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?

And everyone of those issues can and should be handled by the state government and nowhere else. The laws are already on the books in the state of Florida to handle each of those. The Framers were clear on where any power not outlined in the Constitution lie.

I am more concerned with long term ramifications for opening a power of this magnitude to the national government

A) "Is Terri PVS and B) should PVS be in the law under the NOT AWARE statute that allows death by dehydration and starvation?"
A) Court said yes, based on 3-2 doctors testimony. Note that the 3 who said yes are pro euthanasia. Schiavo hand wrote a note in her guardian rehab plan in 1991 calling her same. This plan is court testimony, but hard to find, interestingly. B) Read again what you wrote. We want to starve and refuse water to people, in whatever condition, as a way to kill them BY LAW? If this is such a good idea, why can't we send in the press now to take pictures of Terri? Don't we all really know the reason for this? Why would we even consider this lawful for humans WHEN WE DON'T FOR DOGS?

"Terminally ill." Good question. Note: Terri isn't elderly.

"Criminal evidence" Original case in 1990 was referred to homicide, but not investigated. At least 2 times in 2004, criminality because of dental care and bedsores was investigated per DCF complaints. Nothing was 'found,' except the missing teeth, I suppose.

"1.5 hours." My response: "Why doesn't that Bitch die?" Does a man who wants to prevent her parents from attending a funeral, who wants to cremate and scatter her ashes over Pennsylvania family property--thus in future, making it impossible for the family to visit, by law--sound the least bit negligent to anyone? Don't we know exactly what his game is?