Replies

This is NOT always the case Sarah. Now, I could take the time to post that my nephew is proof of this. Many others could do the same regarding a loved one, a friend, or a friend of a friend. While I do not disregard medical science, I do believe that it is impossible to completely and without a doubt understand the human will. The instinct to survive and overcome exceeds the earthly realm of knowledge. In Terri's case, how do we KNOW, without a shred of doubt that her conscious awareness is severely impaired? We know that she is not able to communicate with us what she is consciously aware of. Can YOU, or anyone else, offer solid proof that Terri does not think? Her inability to relay her thoughts to us is NOT proof. That is akin to saying that a person who has had a stroke and who cannot speak and is paralyzed can not think.

No reasonable hope? Please, that is a load of BS. I have seen a young man, who by all medical definitions, had no reasonable hope. Because of the work of nurses, therapists, and a strong family love and dedication, he has proven that "diagnosis" of "no reasonable hope" to be wrong. Let me add that when there is no "reasonable" hope we also have hope in our Saviour's healing power. There are some of us who do not place all of our hopes on man's ability. While recognizing medical science for the blessing that it is, there is a Greater Physician who says it is not the final authority.

The human brain has been and will remain a mysterious organ. Divinely created it cannot be decoded by man and machines. It holds potential not yet unlocked. I ask you, when Terri smiles, when she cries, when she responds to stimuli, what is that? Is it a coincidental reflexive response? Sorry, I don't buy that. It is an appeasement. It is easier to say that it is reflexive rather than to say, "I don't know. I don't understand everything there is to understand about the human brain. It is too complex for my finite mind".

When you, or anyone else, finds the key that unlocks the mysteries to the human brain and discovers ALL that there is to know about it, get back with me. Upon your proof that you have ALL of the answers, only then will I accept your opinion of no reasonable hope.

Very nice explanation.

I actually do not claim there is no reasonable hope for Terri, or that she is actually in a persistent vegatative state...

She has been diagnosed as being in such a state by qualified experts, and the court accepted their opinion.
The "persistent" part of the diagnosis means she is likely to remain that way forever with no reasonable chance of recovery.

I accept that many people, including other medical experts, think the diagnosis is wrong.