"I think" "I want" "I would not want"
Everyone seems to preface their opnions with the above. It does not matter what someone thinks or what someone would want in that situation.
We are talking about the life of another human being. We are playing God when we decide to stop the nourishment of a phyically healthy person with a brain imapairment just because we "would not want to live like that".
She was not in the final stages of a terminal disease. She was relatively healthy. Her death has nothing to do with what happened to her so many years ago. Her death will not be due to her neurological status.
At the very least, our system of "checks and balances" should have allowed DCFS to do it's job. It does not matter if she was denied the most basic care and rehab? Because she is brain impaired means we can look the other way knowing her husband as her guardian has blocked any effort to improve her quality of life with the blessings of the court? Being brain impaired means it is okay to keep her in her room for at least 5 yearss with curtains drawn and blinds closed? How many would be outraged if the family dog was kept in a crate 24/7?
Our system of checks and balances should have allowed for testing using the protocol for diagnosing PVS, especially considering the diagnostic error rate. It should have allowed for rehab and speech therapy to determine if there could have been any improvement. Terri was never going to get up and walk out of the hospital, we all know that. But she was disallowed the most fundamental option of all-improving her status quo with testing and rehab.
Our system of checks and balances should have said "Michael she is on the tube feedings at your request. Did you recieve any legal advice regarding her diagnosis and the legal classification of tube feedings prior to that request? Did anyone tell you her tube feedings coud be stopped whereas if you did not feed her orally, you would be subject to charges of abuse and neglect?"
This whole case centered around Michael's request to allow for her death. It centered on Michael's rights as her next of kin. The only right of Terri's that the court was concernbed about was her right to die. Her rights as a living, breathing human being coutnted for nothing.
I would not want to live her her condition
I would not want to live my life as a quadreplegic
I would not want to live with Lou Gerhig's disease
I would not want to live my life blind or deaf
I would not want to live with Alzheimers
I would not want to live to undergo countless rounds of chemotherapy if ever I have cancer
But by God, that does not mean I want the state to give it's blessings to my husband if he decides to dehydrate me to death.
Being the spouse of someone in Terri's condition cannot be an esy life. I will give MS that. And like him, I would initially seek out any therapy I could for a "cure." But you live with the hand you are dealt. How you live with it is what defines your character. I have no problem with MS going on with his life. But it is how he did it. He could have divorced her, turning guardianship over to her family or he could petition the court to stop feeding her so she would die.
But I can never imagine myself going to court to kill my husband if he was healthy otherwise.
Too many typos--should never post early in the morning.
It is unconscionable that a Judge Greer...any single judge...would have the sole power to decide this disabled, but young, healthy woman's life and death by starvation/dehydration. No single individual should have that kind of power. It is truly, truly WRONG and FRIGHTENING.
Now he is upheld by judges all the way up and down the line. And these judges are angry that Congress and the President dared pass a law for de novo review. They are seething. The fact that a disabled woman lay dying at the hands of one of their own - a judge - meant nothing to them.
In fact, they are also angry at the Schindlers for continuing their appeals for Terri's life.
Whereas, a lot of the rest of us out here are more than angry at the Judges. We are livid. We are very scared.
While I agree with your assessment, I don't see checks and balances being applied here. Judges made up their own law to follow, even though the PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.