In your #590 you cited a couple of instances of 'past treatment' which you felt were important. "* [failure to] order regular dental care (her teeth are presently rotting due to a lack thereof). * [failure to] have therapies aimed at improving her quality of life, such as restoring her ability to speak and swallow. * [failure to] have the broken bones in her body properly mended (I'm not a doctor and don't know if this is possible. BTW how did she get the broken bones to begin with?)"
Standing alone, there is no evidence that any of these explain Terry's present inability to feed herself. Isn't the whole problem here a dispute as to whether all the 'therapies' in the world could restore her ability to speak and swallow?
Look, I realize it is hard to say that someone should be allowed to die when their own condition prevents them from living. But physical life is not the ultimate value. If Terry knows Christ, she will live forever -- and she won't need a feeding tube.
Where would this stop? Suppose all she needed to survive (beyond the feeding tube] was a 'little' heart/lung machine? Suppose the machine cost $1 million? Suppose $1.95?
Suppose there were 1 chance in 100 she could survive for 10 years in that condition, would you want to overrule the (hypothetically honest and caring) husband? How about 1 chance in a million?
You can't write such a law and you really don't want to. Let her go home.
It's an argument by paradigm, not syllogism: the incidences are examples that, taken together, establish a pattern of neglect, which pattern supports the proposition that Michael's primary motives are something other than Terri's best interests. Consistent with a paradigm argument, the more examples, the stronger the case - and others have documented these meticulously.
Here's another rock on the pile: Terri could conceivably make a court appearance herself. However, her wheelchair is broken. Michael has not had it fixed. I'm not sure, but he may have even explicitly ordered it not be fixed.
Where would this stop? Suppose all she needed to survive (beyond the feeding tube] was a 'little' heart/lung machine? Suppose the machine cost $1 million? Suppose $1.95
Where does it stop, indeed? That argument - a reductio ad absurdum - can slice the other way. Where do we draw the line of personhood, with the rights and privileges enjoyed under the law? It has always been my contention that replacing a logical criteria - life is a dynamic continuum that begins at conception and ends with a natural death - with a scalar one, such as a) development, b) brain activity, c) intelligence, or d) volume of liquid one can swallow, has proven dangerous in a broader historical context. Before you respond to that, ask yourself what makes you you? Is it the cells and nerves that comprise the man known as WC on FreeRepublic? Our cells completely turn over every 10 years. There is a dynamic principle, even a divine spark, elusive, that defines us as human beings and defies all scientific inquiry. We are, and each of us is special, not measurable in our entirety by any scale but transcendent, characters in the magnificent theater of Creation.
Regarding your hypotheticals and, specifically, terminal patients: I agreed with your earlier argument about terminal cancer victims. Oat-cell lung cancer, which killed my father-in-law at age 57, kills 94% of its victims overall, and almost 100% with extensive-stage disease. Only two clinical stages exist for this devastating carcinoma. He elected to forgo chemo. That was his choice and I don't hold it against him. I may have even made the same choice, given the prognosis for this particular disease and the drastic side effects of powerful drugs like etoposide, vincristine, and cisplatin. You know even better than I the pain and tears brought by cancer, watching the one you love deeply slowly succumb, weakening day by day, week by week, vicariously dying with them each day.
Terri's case is quite different: no chemo, no ventilator. All she needs is a feeding tube. With the proper therapy, there's no reason to assume she could never be rehabilitated. The testimony of doctors favorable to her cause seems to have gotten short-shrifted - improperly weighted. Judge Greer gave a doctor with over a decade visiting Terri triannually less weight than one who visited her for 30 minutes. This is consistent with Judge Greer's pattern throughout this case (see the transcription at 607 of a Nov. 2002 ruling against evidence that could have proven harmful to Michael). What is unclear to me, though perhaps irrelevant, is whether the seed of this pattern lies in favor toward Michael or favor toward euthanasia for the disabled and the precedent it will establish; it's irrelevant because they are synonymous, but I suspect the latter.
Others are seeing this.
BTW as an interesting fact: did you know that Judge Greer is legally blind? There is a picture posted somewhere on FR of him "examining" several documents pertaining to this case. He is not wearing any glasses (presence of contacts unknown).