[Dog Gone]

My position on Terri was consistent throughout the entire episode. I thought there were valid concerns about her wishes and her physical state. At a minimum, there should have been current testing before any final decision was made. My preferred outcome was that Michael divorce her and let the Schindler's take care of her.

But I'll readily agree that I found the Terri threads extremely uncomfortable, because inaccuracies were repeated endlessly, and any hint of moderation, or heaven forbid, opposition was brutally attacked. Even a suggestion that the Schindler's attorneys were pursuing bad tactics was enough to get a person tagged as being in the pro-death camp.

My complaining about those threads was enough for you to label me as pro-death. Horsefeathers. I'm unwilling for you to falsely label me without challenging you for your proof of which you have none. The best you can come up with is some sort of guilt by association.

[torchthemummy]

I apologise. I never should have thrown you into the mix. It was irresponsible. I agree that during Terris case some rumors were made into facts but by the same token some that felt the legal system was aok purposely ignored the initial trial decisions by Greer that showed a propensity to accept Michael's belated hearsay admission shortly after the settlement that stated Terri had stated she wanted to die and ignored the hearsay testimony of Terri's best friend, in fact dispelling her testimony by coming to a conclusion that Terri's statement about the Quinlan case was inadmissable because thy were both seventeen at the time when they were both actually 19 at the time.

[supercat]

My position on Terri was consistent throughout the entire episode. I thought there were valid concerns about her wishes and her physical state. At a minimum, there should have been current testing before any final decision was made. My preferred outcome was that Michael divorce her and let the Schindler's take care of her.

I think one of the big issues here is that many of us perceived Michael's behavior as being far more consistent with a man who is hiding something than with a loving husband. If, in fact, Terri would have been unable to swallow, Michael could likely have gotten rid of her in October 2003 by simply allowing the parents to try to give her food and water by mouth. Terri would probably have gotten nowhere near the support she got if people perceived that Michael was acting in good faith; without that support, the legislature would have never signed the 2003 Terri's Law, and Terri would have died about 18 months ago.

Why, then, has Michael so consistently refused to act in a manner that would defuse public criticism? The only answers I can figure that make any sense are:

1. He was afraid that Terri might be able to swallow, in which case he would no longer have any justification for killing her.
2. He was taking direction from Felos, who wanted the dramatic precedent of being able to unambiguously dehydrate someone to death in broad daylight; had Terri aspirated while her parents were trying to feed her, that wouldn't have set the precedent Felos wanted.

Can you offer any legitimate motivation for the principals' action that makes any sense?