Replies

You took the words right out of my mouth. Good thing, too, because you put it more succinctly than I ever could have.

The only point where we might disagree is in that ridiculous order by Greer that denied anyone from trying to nourish and hydrate Terri by "natural" means. That is the link in the chain that I can't be convinced could be seen (by any rational person) as "lawful" never mind humane.

The only point where we might disagree is in that ridiculous order by Greer that denied anyone from trying to nourish and hydrate Terri by "natural" means.

Well, you and I are in 100% agreement on this.

I'm thinking there is more here than we are aware of. My understanding based on news accounts and anecdotes by those thrust into the public eye is that Michael initially got the order to feed via stomach tube because "it was too much trouble" to have someone feed her. In spite of the fact that I think it despicable that it was deemed ok to starve her when a person can go to jail for starving their dog, I have wondered why the family's initial court filings, to my knowledge, didn't include statements of their willingness to hand feed her. Did they fight Michael on the issue when he received judicial approval to feed by stomach tube? To me, they seem to have almost as many credibility problems as Michael; however, on their side of the equation, they were fighting to save a life, while Michael was fighting to take a life.

All the hand-wringing has been about how immoral it was to allow this to happen, when from a legal standpoint (which often has little relationship to morality), the issue is whether Terri stated she did not want to be kept alive by artificial means. Terri's desires in this manner are the crux of the matter. How can Terri's parents be believed when Michael was supposedly present and they weren't when she ostensibly made the statement? For such an extreme resolution, an off-hand comment supposedly made by her could not have foreseen the resulting ramifications.

I'm listening to O'Reilly as I type this, and the discussion is whether it was an act of mercy to allow her to die. Well, we use acts of mercy on animals, not on people; we respect a person's wishes. Perhaps this will lead to a legitimate discussion on how to resolve such issues in the future.

What were Terri's wishes? I don't think Michaels statement about her desires was factual. I don't think she stated to him what he said she did, especially when considering the timing of when he said it. But, there is little credible contradictory evidence otherwise, and he was legally her guardian.

"The only point where we might disagree is in that ridiculous order by Greer that denied anyone from trying to nourish and hydrate Terri by "natural" means."

Ridiculous??? Boy, THAT'S an understatement. You mean, CRIMINAL!