Having read excerpts of the book the attorney wrote, the one who represented her parents in having her killed....he spoke in one part about seeing Nancy for the first time and being shocked to see her eyes open and her apparent "life".
Just a few nights ago I found article after article in the NEJM about how to help kill these people ( my words) when they look so alive. All of these discussions about how to get past the hurdle of the victims themselves looking so alive to others.
It seems to me that since that time, they have come up with their approach. I call it the "empty shell" approach. It's the thing you hear over and over from the right to kill movement, about how the person looks alive but really that is just a shell of a person there. Christine's father used it over and over again in public.
To seal that approach in time, the attorney I spoke of above, in case you didn't know, wrote a book about killing Nancy subtitled the deaths of Nancy Cruzan. Deaths, plural. And apparently on her gravestone they have three dates, her birthdate, the date she "really" died in the accident, and the date they killed her with dehydration.
These people just make me ill. To think of that poor woman looking forward to her can of food, and what they did to her, makes me want to cry.
Lord, can there be any better description of evil than the things that are happening, have happened in these stories? If this is routine now, what is ahead of us?
I know the pro-diers ignore all logic. But I wish they could see that, if they choose to see her body as an empty shell, then they should agree she is not suffering while being kept alive.
If they say that she is suffering by being kept alive, then they should agree that she will suffer while being dehydrated
The idea that it would be "merciful" to kill a "not-even-there-patient", is ridiculous. The would be like their saying, "I am going to put this damaged apple out of its misery." A damaged apple has no misery.
In other words, she does not need to be "mercifully" released from her body, if "she" isn't there.
Nancy's family couldn't seem to make up their minds about whether she was already dead when she was in the hospital. One minute they say she "She would have been X years old." Then they correct themselves and say, "She is X years old." (I can see making that kind of mistake but their muddled thinking gets worse)
One time her father said he was glad she was finally released to heaven and another time he said she was already there for quite a while Yet another time he expressed uncertainty about whether there is an afterlife.
The pro-euthanasia folks get away with talking out of both sides of their mouths.
(I know that using logic to fight them is not the answer, but it bugs me that they can be so two-faced)
How can someone say, "The patient has no consciousness," one minute and argue that the patient needs to "die with dignity" the next?
If Terri is not enough of a "person" to deserve to live, then she is not enough of a "person" to deserve the "privacy" her husband is imposing on her.