| At the risk of sounding clinical, the real issue at hand is simply a Constitutional one. There are several things to note in this case:
1. It isn't a "right to die" case because Terri's wishes are in doubt. In the absence of a living will, we can rule out the "right to die" issue. 2. Terri's medical condition is in question. There are those who say that she is in PVS and others who maintain that she isn't. While there is a question, and because of current limitations on medical science to make an empirical statement, Terri's medical condition is in doubt.
3. Life and death circumstances are not family jurisdictional. We don't own our children. Many parents think they do, but each child holds a unique status under the US Constitution that affords them protection. One is not allowed, for instance, to abuse them or kill them, or even neglect them without serious penalty. No American citizen is afforded the right under the Constitution to OWN another individual--We did away with that during the War between the States. Ownership doesn't extend to spouse either. So in reality, legally it isn't a family matter.
Summary:
Where does that leave us? If there is doubt about Terri's condition, and doubt concerning her wishes in a state requiring life support, etc., then the decision passes upon the state. The burden of proof is placed upon the state to determine the outcome.
So the agent of the state was consulted--the court system in this case. Upon examination of the evidence they determined that Terri's sustenance should be removed.
Ordinarily it should all stop here, but there is a reason stopping here may be a mistake. In all cases, something MUST be present in order for a case be determined. The case must be made "beyond a reasonable doubt".
The Snipet may be wrong, but upon review of the decision to remove Terri's feeding tube, it did not seem that the case for removal was made beyond that reasonable doubt. There are many reasonable doubts in this case, except for the mindless ideologues and armchair authorities.
If this is indeed the case, then the decision to remove the tube was one of judicial activism--a judge making law as opposed to interpreting and applying the law. if this is the case, then Terri is simply being euthanized. if this is the case, then we have a serious breach in her rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. (Email me if you need to know which one)
Of course, nowadays who really cares about the Constitution? |
Euthanasia: The act or practice of ending the life of an individual suffering from a terminal illness or an incurable condition, as by lethal injection or the suspension of extraordinary medical treatment. Also called mercy killing.
No, she is not being euthanized. No one (except for Michael Shiavo) knows if she could have recovered and she didn't have a terminal illness. In fact, she has been living some quality of life for 15 years. The feeding tube is not an extraordinary medical treatment.
A respirator is, as in people who suffered from polio.
She is being murdered. Do you disagree?