Replies

OK.

We begin with the allegation that Terri was in "PVS." This diagnosis, in general terms, is controversial; but in the specific case, those MD's who made that determination did so without the extensive testing which protocol demands. Further, the designation was applied to a woman who had had the benefit of ZERO therapy at the express order of her legal husband. As you know, many MD's were surprised to learn that there were no PET or MRI scans which supported the "PVS" diagnosis.

Secondly, in a case like Terri's, nutrition and hydration are simply not considered "extraordinary" or "burdensome." There are cases where feeding/hydration are fruitless, and even contra-indicated, such as when other bodily functions are shutting down (kidney failure, e.g.) in what is viewed as a classical 'shutting-down' sequence. The fact that tube-feeding is a recent addition to medical care is irrelevant. By the way, since Terri was able to swallow her own saliva without difficulty, there is some reason to believe that therapeutic treatment would have been effective in 'weaning' her from the tube.

Then there is the question of "utility," which has been phrased as "Would YOU want to live under these.....for the next XX years?"

This question really is a conflation which is mis-applied. The first part of the conflation is, perhaps, easily verified. YOU might not want to live under such circumstances. However, the second part contains an implied projection: that is, would you, based on your answer, apply the same rule to Terri? The answer given is "yes," but that answer is irrelevant and immaterial, because neither you nor anyone else can "speak" on behalf of someone to effect their suicide (or murder, as I would characterize it.)

This last goes to the moral question. It has long been a fixture of Judaeo-Christian moral theology that only the Author of life has the authority (not a pun--) to end that life, or those lives. In the case at hand, the State, through legal constructs, some of which are certainly shaky, has arrogated to itself such authority.

This brings us to the presumptive nature of the State. Under the Constitution, the State (whether Federal or State) is established for the benefit of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit...' All of the State's apparatus and actions which flow from this initial charge are legitimate; all that contradict this charge are, per se, illegitimate, (excepting the cases of criminal conviction for certain specified and narrowly limited actions.)

We most likely agree that many of the State's functions and apparatus are not related to protection/promotion of 'life, liberty...'--but in the Terri case, the State's apparatus and actions were directly contradictory to the presumptive charge--the raison d'etre.

These are the general principles on which I base my argument that Terri was murdered by the State, in collusion with her "legal" husband. For Greer, in the end, acts as an instrument of the State, and he should have seen to Justice by adhering to the State's first duties.

Happy?