[presently no screen name]

I heard that also. But if Family Services are going in - why would they need permission from the guardian. If they found something wrong, and the guardian is there to protect her - why would they think they would even get permission from a guardian. They come in - in any situation - see something wrong - and can't do anything about it because they need permission from the person who is the one who is doing the wrong.

If I was speeding, the cop says this is wrong, does he ask me permission to give me a ticket. Dumb scenerio but I'm working on my last nerve here.

[Heff]

Its a complicated issue. Every court thus far has said the scumbag is within his rights as Terri's guardian, to have the feeding tube removed.

Unfortunately, I think in most of the pleadings to the courts, the family has not argued effectively about Terri's lack of written expression of her wishes in an incapacitated state, which she is in now.

The scumbag husband during the civil litigation never once stated that, in essence, Terri doesn't want extraordinary measures to sustain her life. Once the money came in, and after he professed that he was going to take care of Terri, then order all support to stop for Terri.

The court has overlooked two important facts; they have not clearly discerned Terri's cognitive abilities and they haven't determined whether or not the Scumbag is in a conflict of interest; in other words is he making these decisions based upon a real expression made by Terri or does he stand to gain something by her death.

Because the Court has not ordered an independent evaluation of Terri's condition, they cannot be certain if Terri is undergoing unnecessary pain and torture as a result of no nutrition.

If Terri dies this way, nobody wins except the scumbag.