21 March 2005

Terri's Case Day 3 Of Prolonged Death

It seems to me, that we are all missing something. How, can someone advocate the ending of the life of another, if that life is in no immediate danger of expiring without care? Terri's injuries and/or mental state are in no danger of killing her. This is evident by the neglect that has been ordered by her so called husband. He has not allowed her to be cared for as she should have been. Treatments that would have normally been open to her, have been withheld. Who are we to say that maybe by his refusal to provide the treatment that is open to her, he hasn't facilitated a decline in her condition? What we need is clarification on the guidelines governing the ending of treatment. It seems to me that it shouldn't have been an option since her life was in no immediate danger. It is a crime in the state of Florida to withhold food and water from a pet. In that case, Judge Greer's ruling is tantamount of stating to the world that Terri Schiavo is less of a life form than a house pet. And in doing so, he has violated her 14th amendment rights. On another side of this topic. How can Michael be allowed to make decisions on behalf of Terri? By his living with another woman, and having children with this woman, he is considered to have a "common law wife". If that is the case, having more than one wife is bigamy. And the last time I knew, bigamy is illegal in all 50 states.
Petition for Social Security Reform Facts On The Fair Tax


Blogger NickatNite said...

Life is precious. What is life? What is living? Is living in a vegetative state for 15 years living? If my body needs a machine to keep my vitals going, It's telling me that it's time to leave this world and get to the next. Do I want to get starved and dehyrated to death? No - but please call Dr. Kevorkian for me. These are my wishes Grib. They arent written down in a living will. I feel for the parents. It cant be easy for them. But it's time to get real.

3/24/2005 11:26:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home