Show me where the law demands an innocent woman be put to death by starvation / dehydration without benefit of a jury, and I’ll show you where the law is wrong.
If you are talking about a criminal case, you are absolutely correct, however, Terry was ruled to be in PVS, and Michael suddenly "Remembered" that she didn't want to be preserved in that state. (why only tell him and a witness who is dead, heck, I even broadcasted here that I don't want to be preserved indefinitely). But OK, now you have Michael going to court and saying it was her wish, and once that ball gets rolling, either:
A) He admits he was committing purgery (not likely)
B) The Court overturns spousal rights.
C) The Court weakens the right to decide you don't want to be kept alive by artificial means.
D) The court overturns the diagnosis which has been entered into the record of PVS.
E) The court rules to find that Michael may have his wife's feeding tube removed.
The court took E eventually, and From the video I saw the other day, it was a mistake, she was communicating with her dad.
The truth is, the law was not adhered to. If it had been, Terri would be alive today, and probably capable of even more than she was after years of illegal neglect.
You never know, the law is a tricky thing, I mean technically, the tax code being a graduated tax is not constitutional, but if you don't pay they still come and get you. (a legal structure known as "Words of art" are used to redefine common words with new meanings only used in the document they are defined in, I.E. the tax code."
If this is important enough to you to push your opinion, then it’s important enough for you to know the facts.
It's important to me because I have been in a situation where i did not want my life preserved artificially, and having thought it through, I don't want my right not to be receesutated to be taken away. Beyond that, Terri is dead, she is not coming back, I belive she is with God and happy. LEt's worry about how we keep this from happening again while not keeping people like myself from having the right to say "Stop keeping me alive now". People die, i hate to sound cold hearted, but it's part of life, and I believe it was designed that way. I do not believe they are gone, I do not belive they are unhappy about it, many especially if they have been sick for a long time, I believe, are relieved when they die and move forward to a future that cannot get ill, or infirm.
The problem in this discussion is that religion, emotions from past loses, and differing perspectives get jumbled to gather in a mass that defies reason and decorum. I try not to be rude, but either I speak things plainly enough for my meaning to get past all the preconceived notions, or I resign myself to not communicating at all. and either way, I offend someone.
Read through the threads, and you’ll discover there were countless laws broken in pursuit of Terri’s death. Judge Greer even announced in court that the law was Terri would die, regardless of any evidence yet to be presented. Show me that law.
Show me that one quote.
There is no such law. The well documented fact that the laws were not enforced doesn’t mean we need more laws to ignore. If the laws on the books had been followed to the letter (as you claim you would want) then Terri would not have been killed.
Great, that is what should have happened, it didn't, so how do we get the law to be followed in the future? Can it be made simpler? Can we impose fines on judges who break the law? (or better yet, get rid of those judges) What should we do?
If the laws against starving and dehydrating people to death aren’t sufficient, what would you add to the new law to make it more binding than the old law? “We really, really mean it this time?”
Law per se has become incomprehensible to man. There is no lawyer who is competent to administer "The Law", the specialize, they work in teams, bringing together the "Specialties" needed for that case. the "Law" should be simple enough to allow everyone to understand it, not just lawyers, and in pieces. Once the law is simple enough, it will be harder to break because everyone around you will know you broke the law.
Let's look at how God does it. "
Thou shalt not kill." See? That's pretty simple, isn't it, and everybody gets it, and Terri would still be alive. How do we get to that state instead of a law that has exceptions for Babies that have not taken their first breath yet and allows responsive people to be classed as PVS?
Show me positive movement, yes, talk about terry, but talk about her in terms of what should be changed...