Replies

Perhaps. But it is not their place. She belongs to her husband, and he to her. That's why the father "givers her away" at the ceremony. She doesn't belong to them.

SHE willingly gave him the legal and moral right to speak for her in this situation by marrying him. She has to live with the consequences of that decision. No one, even the parents have the right to come between that.

Unless it can be established legally that he should loose that right, it's his decision. The courts have not found reason to do so.

The parents are way out of line here.

Circumstances in a marriage change. There is a possibility that Terri would have revoked that right from him had she not been stricken before doing so. It has been said that Terri was going to leave him. Unfortunately, we don't all have the convenience of knowing when something terrible is going to happen to us.

It is not reasonable to me that the parents have absolutely NO say in what happens to their own daughter. A husband isn't given the right to murder a wife, abuse a wife, or anything else, just by virtue of marrying her.

She belongs to her husband, and he to her. That's why the father "givers her away" at the ceremony. She doesn't belong to them.

The :giving away" is symbolic as to the care of the individual being transferred from parent to spouse. But it would be a stretch to assume that such "care" would include killing the person by forced starvation/dehydration. When my father-in-law "gave away" his daughter to me at our wedding, I don't think he thought that would include the right to kill her.

I have heard that in some Middle Eastern countries, killing the female spouse is within the rights of the husband. I have been told that in ancient Rome the father of a family could choose to kill his infant child by abandoning it in the countryside to die of exposure if he choose not to take the trouble to raise it. So I guess there is contemporary and historical precedent for familial murder. But I had assumed all along that we were a more civilized and enlightened society than these barbaric ones. Silly me, I guess I was wrong...

Conflict of interest cannot be plainer.He cannot have Terri's best interest at heart when he has a live in girl friend and kids with her that depend on the money from the medical malpractice suit to foster their lifestyle.
If your entire comfort with this situation is based on the failure of a court to say so,then don't look further because even a cursory look at legal history would show you innumerable cases of miscarriages of justice.
But sleep soundly,in your world everything is ok because a judge said so....until they come for you!

Unless it can be established legally that he should loose that right, it's his decision.

Negative. It is the PATIENT's decision, and the PATIENT's alone. Greer found that Micheal's comments represent Terri's wishes. That's what has folks chapped, because the evidence is not so clear that Michale's belated recall does in fact represent Terri's wish to be starved to death.

Unless it can be established legally that he should loose that right, it's his decision. The courts have not found reason to do so.

If Michael did not use his power as guardian to prevent a divorce from being filed, a divorce court judge wouldn't have to deliberate five seconds before issuing a divorce. That a married man can declare another woman his "fiancee" and still claim marital authority is absurd.