Ready for a shock?





I don't agree with Bush (either of them) or the congress on this issue. The Supreme Court did right by denying to hear the case after the Florida courts ruled on this.
Comparing this case with abortion, or medically assisted suicide, or any other thing it has been compared to in this thread is like comparing apples to oranges.
After doing some thinking on this particular subject, I have come to the following conclusion. It has to do with spousal rights.

I think that the husband/wife should be in full control of the health concerns of their spouse and decisions should be made based upon medical opinions in the absence of any medical or personal directives left by the victim.
Now the issue comes up of how much awareness, if any, that Terri has. If the doctors are saying that her awareness is non-existent and her motions are caused by brain stem activity only and not actual cerebral stimuli with any hope of any recovery, then the husband should be able to, without any outside influence, be able to make the decision to disconnect OR continue artificial means of life support.
I believe the Bible when it says that one should leave his/her father and mother and be with their spouse and the two should become one. This puts, I feel, the responsibility on the medical care decisions, among a ton of others, on the spouse of the affected. Now if the spouse wants to seek the opinions of the extended family members and include them in the decision making process then that, of course, would be the right thing to do as far as in being a compassionate human being. But the ultimate decision needs to be with the spouse.
This case brings out so many exceptions, however, in that the husband has a girlfriend and wants to marry her. There is a large sum of money involved in a life insurance policy. Some doctors have said that there may be hope for some type of rehabilitation. Have these doctors had a chance to examine her? It seems to have made sense that with all of the hype of the case that they have. I read last week that Terri's father along with an investor/lawyer put the full amount of the insurance policy into an account and told her husband that he could have the money if he would divorce her and let them make her medical decisions. He refused to do so. So what does this say? It says to me that he believes the doctors, however many medical opinions that they have received, that there is no chance of her regaining a functional consciousness and being able to communicate. It tells me that even though he is with another woman socially, he still cares about the well being of his wife. Now does that mean that he is right about being with that other woman....NO...absolutely not. It's reprehensible and socially unacceptable but I think that he is still doing the right thing compassionately and making the decision that he says that she communicated to him known to the doctors and to both of their families. If he is lying, then shame on him and he will have to live with that decision for the rest of his life and into eternity.

People say that this issue would be moot if Terri had left an advanced directive and they would be absolutely right. But not everybody is going to do this, especially young, seemingly healthy people because this would make them face their mortality....something that not many people spend a lot of time thinking about. It's a shame but that's just the way that it is.


Hubby