[adiaireton8]

There is a higher law. It is called natural law. When positive law (i.e. federal/state/local law) is in conflict with natural law, then we must follow the natural law. This is why, for example, Nazis were not off the hook for following orders. Of course we should strive to change the positive laws so that they are in agreement with natural law. But we don't have to wait for the positive laws to be in agreement with natural law in order to be justified in violating positive law that is contrary to natural law.

-A8

[verity]

I would think this is easier said than done.

[MineralMan]

"But we don't have to wait for the positive laws to be in agreement with natural law in order to be justified in violating positive law that is contrary to natural law."

OK, I have no problem with that. Many have violated laws in good conscience and have been willing to face whatever punishment goes along with that. It's called civil disobedience.

So far, I have seen nobody do this, other than the abortive attempt by Bo Gritz the other day. Who do you suggest should engage in this civil disobedience? Yourself? Others?

I've engaged in civil disobedience myself, and was willing to pay the consequences. Luckily, I did not have to do that, but I was willing to.

Civil disobedience is a powerful tool, but someone has to be willing to bite the bullet, so to speak. Given the low numbers of protestors at the hospice, I don't see anything dramatic happening.

Keep in mind that any such act would require someone capable of re-inserting the surgically-implanted feeding tube. That means you'd need a surgeon on the team. Otherwise, Terri would just die somewhere else.

I don't see that happening.