[DJ MacWoW]

If I'm understanding you correctly,your premise has a flaw. In 1990 when she "collapsed", no one thought eating was a medical intervention. Terri would not have done so either. In 1990 it was also illegal so that even if she'd had a Living Will, it wouldn't have included dehydration till death.

I respect the rule of law and our system of government rather than vigilanteism.

You would have been on the wrong side in many of our country's conflicts such as the Revolution and desegregation.

[eccentric]

If Terri had WANTED life support DIScontinued, she could have signed a Living Will. What was she suppose to sign to say she WANTED to be fed?

[Gondring]

The revolution and desegregation were about respecting individuals' rights, just like I am doing now. Vigilanteism to deny a woman her right is NOT in line with those causes you cited.

If through due process it was determined that Mrs. Schiavo wanted pointless maintenance of her body in such a state, then I would be with you....but due process showed that she was NOT in favor of it. I am not in favor of slecting parental authority over spousal, either, though this is really a matter of the court decisions, not the guardianship.

Terri would not have done so either.

You have me at a disadvantage. I have never met the woman and didn't know her prior to her collapse. I couldn't say any better than Mr. Schiavo what she would have done or not done. I know that some of my preferences are not currently legal (e.g., I'd rather have a big shot of morphine than to have people wait for me to dessicate), so you can't judge them based on current law.

I find it fascinating that you can speak to her preferences and have her on a first-name basis. Did you talk with her about irrecoverable states and end care, or are you just interpreting this from knowing her?