Greetings McGrath….,

From my prospective, and I would venture a guess that I am not alone in this, it was the hastened specific case action on the part of the Federal Legislature that has created the threat to our freedoms and therefore my concerns.

Greetings Mary Garvey,

She may indeed live on for another 50 years however her wishes to not sustain her life in this way has been established by Florida Courts and now a Federal Court has found that she was not denied due process in this determination.

Greetings All,

Unfortunately it seems that the parents of this young lad in Texas were not disposed of sufficient resources to fight the law. It also seems that the folks in support of the current administration, the very folks that one would have thought would have championed the "Right to Life" cause in the Texas scenario seem as though they did not want to create an issue for the administration by doing so.

I suppose an argument that the supporters of the reinsertion of the feeding tube would put forth is that there seems to be differing opinions as to Terri's future. I think one could also speculate that the future of the young lad in Texas was not absolute one way or another.

In any event when political pandering interferes with our established mechanisms for adjudication of differences we are in deep social trouble. What's next? Am I going to be forced to accept medical treatment that violates my deepest beliefs simply because "Congress" has so written and the "President" has so signed?

I have never owned a gun but I am seriously considering purchasing one along with a single bullet. Irrespective of the laws of this country I will not have this temporary temple sustained by man's scientific means or apparatuses as it now seems that my expressed wishes can be questioned and potentially overturned by the Government.

I often wonder that if there was not such a large cache of money available for this Florida woman's care would there even be a fight? I suspect that the institution(s) that would provide the long term care would not wish to do so without being properly (their determination) compensated.

Three years ago a Great Uncle of mine was admitted to hospital with a cerebral hemorrhage. The damage his brain sustained was severe and he was unable to swallow or communicate. The Doctors at the hospital convinced my Great Aunt that there was indeed a possibility of his recovery and suggested a feeding tube be used as "death by starvation and dehydration was merciless". They continued to hold for six months the prognosis that my Uncle would recover. Then his insurance would no longer pay for his care and ironically and immediately their prognosis changed. The feeding tube was removed and his body passed peacefully. His soul had already been called.

There is not a single person that could convince me that the "prognosis" was not conveniently held until it was no longer to the institutions financial advantage to hold it.

When I couple the motives I perceive to be spurious as some portion is financially based with the pandering to a minority interest on the part of our Congress I am truly concerned about the future of our society.

Peace,
Ed