Replies

Lastly, I do think the husband was a scum bag - it could be the judge thought him a scum bag as well - but the law makes no provision for scum bags as next of kin - the judge would have become an activist judge if he inserted himself in here.

Thank you for your reply.

Do think, if it was legal, in your opinion, and if there was a legal guardian suitable for Terri, that she should have received another guardian?

Terri went through 4 guardians her husband was first followed b 3 more. One guardian agreed with the doctors that Terri was in PVS but told the court because the husband had a conflict of interest the request for Terri to be removed from life support should be denied. I dont know why a 4th and final guardian was appointed who agreed with removing life support. I think the parents had bad representation - and it probably was bad because instead of seeking to keep her on life support they sought to overturn the law - they could not be appointed next of kin, etc. They fought the legal battles against the husband not for their daughter.

Anyway I don't condone euthanasia or abortion - but I don't consider allowing someone who is in a PVS to be euthanasia because the brain damage is in the part of the brain where the human consciousness resides so it is a partial death of the body - with only the automatic portions of the nervous system functioning. Think of it as a car that was damaged in an accident - the driver (the brain) is killed and the car drives in circles as long as gastank is kept full.