Re: "How many feet of video were shot?"
Doesn't matter. Testimony from nurses exists that she "tried to say her mothers name," among other things, and "would let us know when she had her menses," among other things, on a regular basis. She apparantly exhibited more than random response. Nurses fed her jello, from which I surmise she probably could have done with specialized baby food and no feeding tube (she swallows her own saliva all day long to this day...if she has any left now). Testimony that she showed observers no indication of resonse that I've seen, was only from brief observations by males, and males other than husband Michael were normally forbidden from entering her room from early on. Intersting. In short though, longer term caregivers strongly disagree.
Re: "Whether or not the husband is honest isn't relevant."
Frankly, yes it may be, since her wishes are a point of relevant contention. As David Dubois (V.P. Gore's 2000 election fiasco lawyer) alluded tonight, her husband testifies that this was her wish, which the Flordia courts have accepted, and whether or not it REALLY was her wish is obviously terribly relevant and the "central issue (if not pursued properly by her parents lawyers)." Actually there is much testimony and evidence indicating that this would not be her wish.
She had no living will, and I ask again, would anyone request in a living will or otherwise, that when there is dispute among Doctors about the possibility of recovery and whether there is cognition (and there is dispute), please slowly starve me to death? This current ruling just isn't right, I tell ya.
I think as Dubois explains it, the bill passed by Congress demands De Novo (a new) review of Terri's wishes. The courts, in response so far, have at least in one case specifically acknowledged the constitutionality of the bill, yet refused to do the review as directed. The Supreme Court probably won't touch it, but I actually hope they do, and clearly Dubois may think they may have good reason to, given this bill. It would be the right thing to do IMO, which is ALWAYS constitutional (doing the right thing, indeed).
I feel that if Terri IS cognizant (perhaps more so as a severely handicapped human, than say a pet) and indeed does NOT want to live such a useless boring life in which she is unable even to prove her very real awareness as reflexes typically overrule her wishes, then she could well be suffering mentally (which I'd think ought to greatly disturb her spouse or anyone). Could we know this were the case, she ought to be killed humanely, not slowly by starvation.
If she is NOT cognizant and can NOT feel pain nor suffer at all, even from being starved to death (all of which most Doctors and surely you would assert), then neither is she suffering by living, and there seems no reason not to allow her parents who hold out hope, to keep her alive.
Let me hear her husband say he's concerned she is suffering in her condition now. That would be a compelling argument to let her die (though not by starvation!).
I'm told no judge could allow her to be killed quickly and humanely (just in case Doctors are wrong about her inability to suffer), because that would be euthanasia. I say starving her to death is euthanasia too, and starving her to death is so potentially inhumane, that one wonders where is the separation between Church and State that might prevent this particular method of ending her life, if ending her life must be the ruling?
What are we, Christian Scientists by law here?
Dan B. |
