"That was NOT mercy killing, it was inhuman." Given that Terri was in a PVS, I don't see how. Maybe you'd better explain.
"If the state was so sure of it's perogative to end that woman's life,"
What are you talking about? The state had no prerogative to end Terri's life.
Under the Florida State Constitution, Terri's right to privacy included her right to refuse medical care. She did not want medical care under those conditions. The court honored her wish.
"then why did they not offer her the mercy of lethal injection"
That would have been illegal.
Given that Terri was in a PVS, I don't see how. Maybe you'd better explain. If I have to explain to you that humanity extends beyond the ability to reason or perceive pain, it is really pointless. One wonders why morphine was administered to a sub-human vegetable.
She did not want medical care under those conditions. The court honored her wish.
Food and water is not medical care. You can keep fooling yourself that Terri Schiavo's wishes were followed in this matter, but you ARE fooling yourself.
That would have been illegal.
Correct, but what was done to her was much worse. It was an abomination.
Schiavo clash is rooted in cash
The dispute between Michael Schiavo and his in-laws began when Bob and Mary Schindler said he owed them money, court records show.
By WILLIAM R. LEVESQUE, Times Staff Writer
Published November 23, 2003
Valentine's Day, 1993.
Michael Schiavo sat by his brain-damaged wife, Terri, at a Largo nursing home as he studied for college classes. Schiavo had brought two dozen roses not long after a jury in a medical malpractice case awarded the couple about $1-million.
Terri Schiavo's parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, walked in. An argument started. With an exchange of heated words, some involving that money, Schiavo's close relationship with the Schindlers ended.
Today, Schiavo and the Schindlers are combatants in the best known right-to-die case in the nation. They are divided by their hopes of Schiavo's recovery and their beliefs of whether she should live or die. But court records show that the origins of that decade-old dispute involved something far less critical than Schiavo's life.
It involved money.
Testimony in the guardianship case from 1993 and 2000 shows that the original family split came, in part, because the Schindlers thought their son-in-law owed them more than $10,000 in living expenses and had reneged on a promise to share his malpractice cash.
"I think one might conclude looking at the facts that a possible motivation on the part of the Schindlers is revenge,"...snip
http://www.sptimes.com/2003/11/23/Tampabay/Schiavo_clash_is_root.shtml Pinellas-Pasco Judge George Greer concluded in a 2000 ruling ordering Mrs. Schiavo's feeding tube removed that the argument was about money.
"It is clear to this court that (the argument) was predicated upon money and the fact that Mr. Schiavo was unwilling to equally divide his ... award with Mr. and Mrs. Schindler," Greer wrote. "Regretably, money overshadows this entire case and creates potential of conflict of interest for both sides."