Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Question, Dr. Sanctimony.
Who is "the right person" to say that Terry should die in this situation? Most would say Terry. Indeed, the courts and the law say both that Terry is the right person, and that she has said so --best anyone can determine.
It seems as if you think her parents should be allowed to keep her empty shell of a body alive even if it were contrary to her wishes. I disagree.
Or is it that she should be maintained indefinitely even if there is "clear and convicing" evidence of her wishes so long as some family members don't buy it?
Look -- there are many levels of problems here. One of the big ones is that her parents and siblings will never let her go -- due to religious belief or otherwise. I think that a big part of the reason they refuse to countenance this passive euthanasia is because they view any suggestion that Terry would want it as equivalent to her committing suicide -- a mortal sin in the Catholic tradition.
It would not surprise me if they'd have tried to fight this even if she had a living will or DHCPOA. For gods sake, her brother was quoted two days ago as saying Terry "remined alert" -- ALERT!! -- after 15 years in pvs. It is important to view this in that context as well.
S_A_M
P.S. Slave -- meant to say this earlier -- you lose any credibility in criticizing Ty's choice of blogs when you post/link to things from the website of the National Right to Life Conference.
ETA [RT got some of it first.]
|
This is a very simple case. Many of you are getting caught up in the media hype. Whether she should be permitted to die is dependent on her wishes. The question has been tried and appealed at several levels of state and federal courts and is settled. Everything else is smoke an mirrors. All this about the husband not acting "husbandly" or having a conflict of interest is bullshit and, frankly, I would think that a board filled with lawyers would be able to identify these as red herrings.
