Replies

I do believe the semantics of this case are the problem. It has been posed as a "right to die" problem when it is a "mercy killing problem." It surely fits all the criteria for mercy killing except it is not an individual but a whole society that has decided to prematurely and actively terminate a life.

Ordinarily, individuals who do this are characterized by feelings of being invincible, clever and disdainful of those who are incapable. There is also a "survivor" motivation that is found in Elias Canetti's Crowds and Power. Here, the human tendency to both lament a death is overpowered by a feeling of elation on not being dead. This is a powerful motif in groups, masses and crowds as Canetti documented so carefully. He was rewarded with the Nobel Prize in 1980 but since has slipped into obscurity.

Quite interestingly, of the two most medically proven cases of mercy killing neither of the perpetrators went to jail In 1975 two nurses at a Veterans Hospital killed scores using a muscle relaxant. They were tried with overwhelming physical evidence but after appeal were released. Similarly, a case in Toronto where digitalis was used resulted in the perpetrator being released.

The point of all this, is that in some biological and psychological way a considerable portion of the population ascribes to "mercy killing" regardless of the flawed logic and cruelty of their belief. Someone should write a book about the motives and findings of medical and non-medical mercy killings. There are dark secrets here that no one dares tell the truth about.

Excellent post.

Someone should write a book about the motives and findings of medical and non-medical mercy killings. There are dark secrets here that no one dares tell the truth about.

Truly spoken. Not enough have seen and UNDERSTAND the BATTLE BEHIND the BATTLE....

...There is an agenda with Greer etc. -- it's the case law "precedents" the would-be killers are trying to set for a larger euthanasia agenda. And THAT agenda is yet in the bigger anti-God, anti-sanctity-of-life agenda of totalitarians. Remove God, remove sanctity of life, consider people and their "God-Given rights" as property of the State and you have....1984. That's what's REALLY going on here.

1984. BRAVE NEW (COMMUNIST TOTALITARIAN) WORLD.

This is part of the Godless machinery to devalue life and make this NO LONGER a government OF, BY and FOR the PEOPLE. This is 'Brave New World' and '1984' totalitarian stuff, inhumane monsters hiding behind "law" playing God.

And from all the research Calpernia and others have posted, Greer probably thinks he IS God. The 'legally blind' issue is MOOT--Helen Keller was TOTALLY blind, deaf and mute--yet compassionate and humanitarian. Greer is sick and wicked and a tool being evilly used...KNOWINGLY.

If we re-frame the debate into a perspective of Culture of (Sanctity of) Life vs. Culture of Death, it would seem that FIRST we would seek to give nourishment to someone like this. It would seem that before we would 'pull the plug' we would also give access to OBJECTIVE PEOPLE who have no vested interest in Terri's life or death. It would seem--consider the amount of money invested to save seagulls and sea lions contaminated by tanker oil spills--we would make effort to rehabilitate somebody who has the fight, the spirit, the will to live.

Absolutely it is foolish--and costs increase geometrically--to try to continue human life to the 'cryogenic-and-hope-to-thaw' extreme. There are some who have been kept on life support whose brain (I am recalling from memory, not citing cases) had practically liquefied. This isn't compassion--this is denial. HOwever, I do NOT believe Terri is in this predicament. I believe there is a conspiracy among Greer, the HINO etc. to snuff this woman.

Let us all pray to God for wisdom and pray for ALL our leaders, elected and appointed, through somehow, God will work out His will. God is still sovereign; this is STILL One Nation, Under God.

Dick Sobsey has done some research on this, as it relates to filicide.

So-called mercy killings, in which the altruistic reason is related to an illness, injury, or disability, make up only about 3% of child homicides (Richards, 2000), but experts in criminal psychology suggest that these cases hide a deeper and darker motivation. According to criminology's most authoritative classification of homicides, "most often, the real motivation for mercy killing has little to do with the offender's feelings of compassion and pity for the victim" (Douglas, Burgess, Burgess, & Ressler, 1992, p. 111). The authors, FBI profilers and criminologists, consider the deeper motivation for mercy killing to be a pathological need for "power and control" (p. 111). Acts of violence typically require two factors. First, there is an instrumental motivation, such as control or desire to be free of responsibility for a child. Second, there must be a disinhibiting factor, such as the belief that it is for the child's good, to release potentially homicidal parents from normal inhibition (Sobsey, 1994). The social endorsement of mercy killing therefore acts as a disinhibiting factor to those who may have instrumental motivations, but might otherwise be restrained by inhibition.

And you are correct, that this has been framed as a right to die case when it is indeed a "mercy" killing.