Their agenda was that they didn't want their daughter to be starved and dehydrated to death. I guess I can have sympathy for their position. I wouldn't want my child in that situation, either. They wanted to take care of her. She was their daughter. They had known and loved her ALL HER LIFE.
I take umbrage at being told I was duped. I want to know STILL how she could respond to "open your eyes" and not only turn her head toward the doctor, but lean in to him, face up, open her eyes as wide as possible, and then raise her eyebrows as she is almost BUGGING her eyes out. You could see her trying so hard as well. I don't give a flying fig what that autopsy report said--I saw her respond. I heard her laugh and I heard her try to vocalize. I am not someone easily fooled, either.
You know they said that Hailee Poutre was brain dead, too. That old familiar "persistent vegetative state" that they like to label people. They even got permission from the court to remove her from life-sustaining measures as her parents were to blame for her condition.
But little Hailee didn't want to die. She woke up and shocked everyone. That brain dead brain, well, it wasn't so dead after all.
I respect your position and my heart aches for what you have had to endure with your wife and losing her. But your wife obviously made her wishes known. Terri did not. Michael suddenly recalling a conversation that they had in passing, only AFTER receiving a jury award, doesn't pass muster. Sorry, that is how I feel.
I have a friend that is dying now, and she has me listed as one of the people authorized to make those end of life decisions for her. What an unbelievable responsibility. I made certain that she clearly spelled out every single thing, because I am not someone who could easily pull the plug. Thankfully, her brother is first in line to make those pronouncements, and I am certain he will follow her wishes.
I appreciate the thought you put into your response, and except for the part where you called me a "dupe" ;^) I appreciate your civil tone. This difference of opinion can get ugly fast, and the issue is an emotional one--for both sides. I don't think we will ever agree on this issue in regard to Terri. I think that we can agree, as Christians, that everyone involved needs our prayers.
Umbrage? Anyway, if you say "open your eyes" all day while filming a senseless subject, eventually you'll get a shot of eyes opening - seemingly to that command. Oldest trick in the book, at least since movies were invented. Even older than Hitler dancing a silly jig in Compiegne! Although he can speak for himself, I will assert that he's not saying they filmed all day, or with the conscious intention of deceiving anyone, but it really wouldn't take much filming to get the footage in question. Sorry to say it (again), but you were duped.
Sorry for using the word "duped", another synonym would've been better.
I too saw those same videos, thus know what you're referring to since I initially thought they were proof she was rational. They were indeed powerful, and gave the impression of cognitive ability. In fact, they were so compelling, that even politicians were driven to enact legislation and declarations, including medical diagnosis, that she was rational.
Despite my fervent hope Terri was cognitive, I later learned of the circumstances behind those videos - they were only a few minutes of dozens of hours. I was especially shaken when learning Terri was always like that, moving, laughing, opening her eyes, moaning. I then saw medical reports where the court-appointed guardians and doctors claimed she never, not once, responded in any cognitive way, regardless of how much or how long the stimuli was.
How could this be? I saw the videos of her "looking" at the balloon and smiling when "seeing" her mother. I then found out those video clips were highly edited out of hours of visitations where Terri showed no awareness at all.
I then re-examined those same video clips and was disturbed by what I saw. It was obvious they were STAGED. Terri wasn't looking at the balloon, she was moving her eyes and head the way she normally does and they moved the balloon to follow her eyes. Her mother had to hold her head in both hands and put her face right in front of Terri's to make Terri "recognize" her. If she didn't do it, Terri would've just kept on shaking her head the way she normally did. The voices of her family on those clips, when listened to carefully, were "leading" statements - they provided their own interpretation of what Terri was doing. If the sound is turned off and only a visual observation is made; one's conclusions are very different.
I then saw other clips where, despite their best efforts, Terri showed no recognition of them or what they were doing. Her father was so exasperated at her unresponsiveness that her started poking her on her forehead and nearly yelling in her face.
After re-examining the entire issue, I then became very ANGRY at Terri's parents. I was angry at being duped - I believed them and their claims. I thought Terri was rational and only couldn't communicate verbally. But the facts were clearly on Michael's side, which is why he kept on winning the lawsuits against him. They made their own daughter a spectacle, and for what? To make themselves famous or to save the life of their daughter?
The problem with us humans is we all want to go to heaven but we're not willing to die. Sure Terri could be kept alive for many years to come by having a feeding tube inserted directly into her stomach. But is this *artificial* life support or "forced feeding" moral? Is it desirous even in cases where it is impossible for the person to regain consciousness?
Why is it moral to "pull the plug" on hopeless cases in the emergency room but it is immoral when done in a hospice to Terri? Make no mistake, both are the cessation of "artificial" life support. Having a feeding tube surgically inserted into a person's stomach is every bit as "artificial" as a heart-lung machine.
The duration of survival after the cessation of artificial life support is besides the point. In other words, it doesn't matter if a person dies one minute after artificial life support is withdrawn or if he or she lingers for one or two weeks. One cannot be deemed moral and the other immoral because any temporal marker delineating the border of the two is purely subjective (i.e., it is illogical to claim if a person survives for less than 24 hours after life support is withdrawn, the death is moral, but if it takes more than 1 day it suddenly becomes immoral). Likewise the cause of the final death. It makes no difference if the person finally dies from lack of oxygen or lack of nutrients. Death is the great equalizer for us all.
Lastly and to reiterate, Terri died from a withdrawal of an *artificial* life support and, as the brain autopsy proved beyond doubt, was absolutely and utterly incapable of regaining consciousness. We are now at the point medically where we have the capability to indefinitely postpone final death for those in PVS by artificial means. Sure, some may say Terri would've died eventually, perhaps in 20 years or 40 years. But 20 and 40 years from now medical science will be much more advanced, and will be able to extend life even further.
The question now becomes, "Should we and do we have the right to resist God's will?" Like it or not, people like Terri could've only lives that long in the West during our modern age. Anywhere and anytime else would've had her dying shortly after her collapse. God made our bodies mortal with death being inevitable. Do we have the right to indefinitely keep people from returning to him?
** I don't give a flying fig what that autopsy report said--I saw her respond. I heard her laugh and I heard her try to vocalize. I am not someone easily fooled, either.**
Excellent post!!! The Schindlers asked for another doctor to observe the autopsy, but the request was denied. That was an outrage, imho. You're so right about the videos of Terri. She responded to every command when asked to open her eyes. How anyone can view that video and not admit, Terri was NOT PVS, is beyond me.
Another excellent point you mentioned was concerning Haleigh. The doctors who wanted her to die, said she was both blind and deaf, which was clearly WRONG. Those doctors were obviously guessing or just making things up to justify removing her life support. Thank God they were stopped and Haleigh wasn't tortured to death by the removal of her food and water.