You asked me what I would want if I was Terri. Terri had a family that loved her and wanted to take care of her. If I did not have a family then there would not be that option and I assume my husband (MS) would have me killed.
You went off at some length villainizing Michael, but I think you make too much of the personalities of the people surrounding her because of the positions they take on the issue you care so much about. The parents are greedy, grasping people also who wanted half of Michael's settlement and wanted to become Terri's heirs at law. If Michael had been wise enough to simply give them half the money (even though they had no right to it) there never would have been a lawsuit and Terri would have died 7 years earlier. Similarly, if there had never been a malpractice settlement, there never would have been a lawsuit and Terri would have died 7 years earlier. Neither side distinguished themselves in this matter -- Michael for his adulterous relationship and the parents for their brazen money-grubbing.
I see you have bought into MS's line lock stock and barrel. Once you believe what he has to say all bets are off with looking at this with a clear perspective. You do not know anything that you said is a fact. It is all based on what a lying cheating husband has said. You are wrong about Terri's parents. You don't know them so how do you know what motivated them? Oh yes I forgot you take MS' word for fact.
We are clearly different people. For me, it's not 'all about me.' If I were not conscious or if I were conscious, I would not want to be the dead weight on the family eating into time and money with no hope of recovery, cheapening everyone's understanding of the significance of life. Either way, I would want to be dead. A fortiori if I were conscious. What agony that would be! Knowing of the needless burden I was imposing on all around me. Time for exit stage left.
But it is all about YOU - as I said in previous posts - it is about what You would want done for You - it doesn't matter what Terri would want done for herself or what her parents wanted for her - nope it only matters what you and Felos want done for everyone else - cause you know best. Her parents obviously did not consider her dead weight and wanted to take care of her. Who are you to deny them or Terri of that. And how do you know for sure with advances in science that one day Terri could have improved. What gives anyone the right to deny her a future.
You asked me what I would want if I was Terri.
You misunderstood the question. Obviously, you could never be Terri. The question was: If you (with your own background and value structure) were to be afflicted with the same condition as Terri was (without getting into the PVS versus MCS debate -- just whatever it is), would you want to continue to be maintained by the stomach pumping and diapers or be allowed to die? [Basically, if you were writing a very specific living will focused on a condition such as Terri's, what would your instruction be?] Thus, you have to ignore your perception of the personalities around Terri, because they would not be those around you.
I see you have bought into MS's line lock stock and barrel. ... It is all based on what a lying cheating husband has said. You are wrong about Terri's parents. You don't know them so how do you know what motivated them?
Do you see the dichotomy in your thinking? You and I know no more about the parents than the husband, and vice versa. The husband has certainly given us reason to doubt his creditability, but so have the parents. Judge Greer was clearly right to distrust both of them. His extended discussion in his decision (which I won't reproduce again here) makes clear that, but for the husband and the parents fighting over access to the two portions of the malpractice settlement, there almost certainly would have been no lawsuit.
It is beyond dispute that the parents and the husband had their falling out over Michael's refusal to share his $300K with the parents and his refusal to share his status as Terri's heir at law with respect to her $700K. Of course, once the falling out occurred, each side adopted their respective public persona and the rest, as they say, is history.
I do not accept "MS's line lock stock and barrel." In fact, I (like Judge Greer) distrust him and do not feel he could have been allowed to make the life-death decision as Terri's surrogate. BUT, (again, as with Judge Greer) neither do I trust and accept "the parents' line." They have proven themselves hugely money-grubbing people. [BTW, wait for the forthcoming ghostwritten 'book project' from these two promoters.] Judge Greer looked largely beyond the husband and the parents for the basis of his determination of Terri's wishes, because of their mutual problems of credibility.
it is about what You would want done for You - it doesn't matter what Terri would want done for herself or what her parents wanted for her
The answers to your comments are 'no', 'no' and 'yes'. There are two questions debated endlessly on these threads: (i) Were Terri's own wishes regarding her death or life properly and accurately determined in the LEGAL proceeding? and (ii) Regardless of the accuracy of that determination, was it MORAL to deprive her of nutrition and hydration to cause her death? Think of these two as the 'legal' and the 'moral' question respectively.
The legal question is solely about Terri's wishes, not in any sense about what we respectively think. That is the way Judge Greer and all the reviewing courts approached it. BUT, it also has nothing whatever to do with what the husband or the parents want. Their views simply don't matter. It is Terri's position alone that matters.
[One big example is the parents' later effort to trade on the dogmas of the RCC. They surrounded themselves in the latter public relations campaign with priests and monsignors of the RCC who attempted to market the dogmas of that organization as relevant to the issues. But as the Court of Appeal noted, " She had been raised in the [RCC], but did not regularly attend mass or have a religious advisor who could assist the court in weighing her religious attitudes about life-support methods."]
However, once we turn to the second question, the moral question, the situation is reversed because she could not implement her own choice herself. Therefore, we have to ask: Is it moral for us to implement it for her? Moreover, since our basis of morality must come from the Bible and Jesus Christ, His declaration in Matt 7:12 ("In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you, for this fulfills the law and the prophets.") becomes the critical determination. So, we must necessarily ask, "How would you want others to treat you (if you were in similar circumstances)?"
I hope this explains to you why the arguments go back and forth between what Terri wanted and what we would want in similar circumstances, depending on whether we are debating the "legal" question or the "moral" question.