This nonsense gets repeated often enough around here and the gullible begin to believe it. There were 15 years (!) of tests while she was degraded beyond belief with slurry pumping and diapers. Will you admit that right was done when the autopsy shows her brain was gone? Probably not. Don't confuse your fevered mind with facts.
It was both legal and moral for her to be allowed to die -- that was her wish. You don't like it so you have closed your mind to the possibility, but it is true nonetheless.
We disagree. I will not go through all the facts that you want to ignore since it has been repeated many times.
It was legal because the law had been manipulated by the end-of-life panel to include the continually alter the recommendations they made that were automatically without legislature oversight approved.
The euthanasia movement has a very strong support in Fla. Many were involved in hospice, lobbys and even the end-of-life panel. (Ignore if you wish).
If her brain was gone - that still does not give any the right to kill her. (Why is that so hard for you to admit?)
It is not determined that she wished not to live in that situation unless you take the word of a husband who wanted her dead. Of course, her family did not believe this. Don't they have the right to speak up for their daughter.
The correct thing would have been for Michael to get a divorce and turn the daughter over to the parents. If later her condition worsened they could re-visit this suppposed wish if they wanted.
Why are you so very willing to deny the parents the right to take care of their daughter that no one else wanted? She was considered garbage and they were not even allowed to have the garbage. Why? Because the precedent for "hearsay accepted" would not have been met in the courts (the euthanasia group desperately wanted this-i.e. Felos). Another reason? Michael wanted all of the funds put in a trust so that Medicaid would pay for her hospice fees. He would not get these until she died.
The courts stood up to the law - correct. But in doing so, they killed a 41 year old woman who had to pass the test of would she recover. You don't have to pass that test - only a poor defenseless woman whose husband wanted her dead. Other people live in her condition - but not poor Terri - she had to die.
Oh, the law. There is a law in Florida that in a disabled person the feeding tube CANNOT be removed. Of course, they ignored this law and instead chose to believe the hearsay evidence. They also ignored a federal subpoena and ignored a law calling for a re-review of the case with new eyes. Just WHY?
Now - none of this will change your mind because apparently you want the option to off those you feel would not want to live in a certain state. However, this is still a man judging the life of another and presuming that he has the authority and the right to do so even though it violates the constitutational rights of the other.
Explain to me when does a person lose their constitutional rights in America? When they are disabled? When some pompous elite person determines they would not want to live in a certain condition (especially if it furthers the agenda of that elite person).
Just how do you protect any of us in the country from a ghoul deciding we are to be done away with? You can't and you sure well know it.