She was physically there - she could not interact with people and there's very inconsistent evidence to show that she was aware of her surroundings. Her brain was liquified - it is apparent by the brain scans. We would be more humane in killing a dog, but they wouldn't allow that for Terri.
Yeah a judge is qualified to decide she will not show significant improvement. You're quoting a judge? Whatever. During the Schivao deal, a girl who was declared PVS and was in a coma, woke up and spoke......it happens all the time and DR.'s say HUH? What? "I can't explain it." What amazed me was the ferventness that some people had towards killing her. They wanted her dead to prove a point which is just as sick as you sending me brain scans of her to prove she's PVS. Who cares if she was? Why do you fight for her death? If we're going to err, err on the side of life. And, when we're all judged, it wouldn't surprise me that we're ALL going to hell for supporting it, allowing it to happen if we don't support it. Just not her, the thousands of babies aborted each year. I'm leery of anyone who fights so violently for the deaths of innocents.....
That judge had access to medical examiners and qualified opinions. It's not as if he made his decision in ignorance. Terri wasn't in a coma. Her brain was liquified. It's impossible for her brain to regrow all those neurons, but perhaps if we all sent prayers she'd become well again. Well, I guess that didn't work. It's about having the right to die. If my brain were liquified, I'd appreciate somebody letting me go.
She was in no pain.....how is it inhumane for her to stay alive and respond to her mother? I'll tell you what's inhumane......STARVING a dog to death......much less STARVING a woman to death. Do you know the required brain function to keep a person breathing? She was breathing on her own, her brain was functioning. He eyes were open. Like I said, she wouldn't operate a jet plane one day. but buddy, that's alive and not liquified. I saw my mother-in-law on a ventilator after her aneurism......that was gone. She was gone. Like I said, I fear anyone who would fight so fervently for the death of innocents. Makes me wonder what kind of animals you people are.
It definitely was not a right to die case dude. Her case a right to starve and kill case. If you think her case was a right to die issue, then you're scary.
You don't have the right to die. Euthanasia is illegal and hopefully always will be. Again, Teri was not on life support. Her vital functions had not failed. All she required was to be fed. She could breath on her own. Her involuntary functions all worked. Her parents and family priest said she could even swallow. This was not a case of removing life support and allowing nature to take its course. This was a case of starving a living woman to death.
I didn't say that's inhumane - I don't think it is. But I think Michael had her best interest at heart and thought that this is what she'd want. It's what I would want in a similar circumstance and I don't find it hard to believe. Breathing, yes. Eyes open, yes. Brain functioning? No. She was physically alive, but she'd never live a life. For the right.
She didn't chose to die.......her husband chose to kill....no starve her to death. If I have a document stating I want to die in this situation and that it's OK to starve me to death, then fine. Do it. I chose to die in this case. But we didn't have this. We had a good for nothing who wanted her to dead to speed up his lottery winnings. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think she chose to die by being starved to death, then so be it. You're the one who has to live with what you think. Not me.
That just makes no sense. If her brain were not functioning at all her involuntary functions like breathing and circulation would fail. She might not have had motor skills, but she definatly had a functioning brain.
