Replies

Thank you pointing out my misspelling of Revelation.

This is a case of a husband seeking release to die for his wife, who is in a persistant vegetative state. The feature of all is history is a husband or wife's responsibility to give permission for their opposite to be allowed to die when the medical opinion is that spouse will be forever in a braindead state.

Yes, there are suspicious circumstances. Yes, the husband stands to gain from her death. But, the fact is that no one here knows what Terri's wishes are. No one here took vows of marriage to her. Only her husband.

If he does this with evil and gain in his heart, that is GOD'S business. The public has no business in it.

I understand the problem and the fear of many. Should this become a precedent, then we, ourselves, may be in a similar situation where we are conscious and unable to communicate and do not want to die. We can put ourselves, in our ignorance, in Terri's place, and feel the fear of death we don't wish.

But how many have been screaming inside to die, unable to screan outwardly, and been denied that by machine and medicine? Distinguishing from the senario in the last paragraph, what may happen when we may be in a vegetative hell, screaming to get out and the public won't let us die.

It cuts both ways.

With respect to the passage in Revelation, in this century only has technology reached the point where a person, who would have been dead in previous years, can be kept alive artificially. I think the evidence, in this age, that this passage applies is greater than the evidence it doesn't.

Thank you pointing out my misspelling of Revelation.

Aw, you shouldn't have. (Thanked me, that is.) (Literally)

The passage in Revelation that you picked up has nothing to say about modern technology. The prayers for death spoken of are a response to the fifth trumpet judgement, the plague of demonic locusts. Context, context. You might as well have quoted "The Sound of Music".

This is a case of a husband seeking release to die for his wife, who is in a persistant vegetative state. The feature of all is history is a husband or wife's responsibility to give permission for their opposite to be allowed to die when the medical opinion is that spouse will be forever in a braindead state.

What is "medical opinion"? What makes this so sacred? "Medical opinion" in real life is an ink mark on a dead tree. As long as that mark has the right marks after it, to blazes with the facts. We can always get a mark when we want it. Look at the abortion industry. All those killings are done because they are "medically necessary" for the "life and health" of the mother. The phrase "and health" has been mutated into a weasel exception that allows abortion in any circumstance. And so here, with PVS. Don't think that this term can't be expanded to allow the killing of anyone at all--if it can be applied to TS the way it has, there are no guarantees for anybody.

I want to say, "you should actually learn the facts before posting to these threads", or actually, SHOUT IT! but now I feel like I'm feeding a troll. So, have a nice day. While you still can.

" I think the evidence, in this age, that this passage applies is greater than the evidence it doesn't."

Hogwash!

You must have flunked sunday school 1a. - It is more than clear that the reason that people will seek death as stated in that passage is to excape the judgements of the Great Tribulation, since that is what is 'in view' in that passage. In addition, Terri is not seeking death, she has openly reacted against it. Her adulterous husband is seeking the "right to have a dead inconvenient spouse."

Sorry to see that you have joined the death advocates; I would have thought higher of you.

This is a case of a husband seeking release to die for his wife, who is in a persistant vegetative state. The feature of all is history is a husband or wife's responsibility to give permission for their opposite to be allowed to die when the medical opinion is that spouse will be forever in a braindead state.

There are procedures by which such wishes can be expressed in writing. Nobody here is questioning the legitimacy of such written requests.

Yes, there are suspicious circumstances. Yes, the husband stands to gain from her death. But, the fact is that no one here knows what Terri's wishes are. No one here took vows of marriage to her. Only her husband.

Her husband is now shacked up with another woman and has fathered two children by her. He has abandoned his wife, and yet refuses to grant her a divorce. Do you believe that he holds his wedding vows sacred?

In the absense of clear and compelling evidence that a person wishes to die, the default is supposed to be a presumption that they wish to live. Michael's testimony about Terri's statements, even if it is true (which I doubt) should not in the eyes of any reasonably judge be considered clear and compelling evidence that she wishes to die, since the allgeged circumstances of her saying it are not ones in which one would normally intend to make binding statements, and since the timing of Michael's revelation strongly suggests that he made the whole thing up. Unfortunately, appeals court judges are not allowed to address the reasonableness of trial courts' actions.

If he does this with evil and gain in his heart, that is GOD'S business. The public has no business in it.

Murder is very much the public's business. And an examination of Terri's medical and financial records may show a very clear motive.

I understand the problem and the fear of many. Should this become a precedent, then we, ourselves, may be in a similar situation where we are conscious and unable to communicate and do not want to die. We can put ourselves, in our ignorance, in Terri's place, and feel the fear of death we don't wish.

Indeed, many of us see this as a very big danger. Given a sufficiently corrupt doctor and Judge Greer heading a case, anyone with insufficient muscular control to feed themselves would be at risk.

But how many have been screaming inside to die, unable to screan outwardly, and been denied that by machine and medicine? Distinguishing from the senario in the last paragraph, what may happen when we may be in a vegetative hell, screaming to get out and the public won't let us die.

A person who's wanting to die doesn't survive seven days of dehyration.

WILLIAM TERRELL WROTE: "This is a case of a husband seeking release to die for his wife, who is in a persistant vegetative state."

I AM RESPONDING: "NO! It is NOT!
Terri is NOT BRAINDEAD!!!!!
Terri is NOT COMATOSE!!!
Terri is NOT in a PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE!!!!

WILLIAM TERRELL ADDED: "Yes, there are suspicious circumstances. Yes, the husband stands to gain from her death. But, the fact is that no one here knows what Terri's wishes are. No one here took vows of marriage to her. Only her husband."

I AM RESPONDING: "Had Terri WANTED no "life support," she had EVERY OPPORTUNITY---just like you and I have---to PUT IT IN WRITING!!! By her CHOOSING NOT to do so, she MADE her CHOICE---TERRI CHOSE LIFE---WITH intervention!"

I AM ADDING: "BTW, a "feeding tube"---aka a "G-Tube"---is a simple, approximately 12" long, stethescope-type tube with either an inflatable or non-inflatable bulb on the end to keep it inside the stomach. It is NO BIG DEAL to insert one and it is NO BIG DEAL to wind it up and store it against the body under a shirt---and NO ONE will know someone has one (unless they see them "eating."

WILLIAM TERRELL ADDED: "If he does this with evil and gain in his heart, that is GOD'S business. The public has no business in it."

I AM ADDING: "You are correct that it is God's business, but it is ALSO OUR business---i.e. the PUBLIC's business!
Just as we cannot allow a woman to be RAPED inside someone's home,
or a child to be BEATEN inside someone's home,
or a man to be SHOT inside someone's home,
NEITHER can we allow a woman to be STRANGLED inside her own home
or a DISABLED person to be ABUSED in a hospice,
or or a DISABLED person to be DISCRIMINATED AGAINST on the basis of their DISABILITY!!!!!

WILLIAM TERRELL ADDED: "I understand the problem and the fear of many. Should this become a precedent, then we, ourselves, may be in a similar situation where we are conscious and unable to communicate and do not want to die. We can put ourselves, in our ignorance, in Terri's place, and feel the fear of death we don't wish."

I AM RESPONDING: "Would you please show me the WRITTEN, NOTARIZED DOCUMENTED STATEMENT or LIVING WILL in which Terri CHOSE STARVATION and DEHYDRATION?" "LOVING" Hitleresque-husband Michael's CLAIMS of Terri's wishes are PURELY HEARSAY!

I AM ADDING: "Unless TERRI CHOSE it (i.e. NOT "LOVING" Hitleresque-husband Michael)---beyond a REASONABLE DOUBT---Terri should NOT be CONDEMNED to a DEATH PENALTY which even the most heinous MURDERER would not receive without having EVIDENCE of GUILT which is BELIEVABLE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT!"

WILLIAM TERRELL ADDED: "But how many have been screaming inside to die, unable to screan outwardly, and been denied that by machine and medicine? Distinguishing from the senario in the last paragraph, what may happen when we may be in a vegetative hell, screaming to get out and the public won't let us die."

I AM ADDING: "If someone is "of age," it is their RESPONSIBILITY to make a Living Will. My hope is that people will make their wishes known IN WRITING as a POSITIVE result of Terri's case."