Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Just to clarify, she's not brain dead, she's severly brain damaged.

Anyway, I've been listening to the "reports" all day. I may be more on the fence than I was earlier today than when I commented on Tech's blog. I'm not sure how I feel now about what should be done for her, but I have to agree with you about Congress. If nothing else it sets a dangerous precendent.
 

Brain dead is NOT brain dead. It's way more complicated than that. "So-called life?" Good gawd, babe, when did we get to decide how aware you have to be to get to live? When did we vote on that? Did I miss something?

I just sounded off on Tech's blog in response to some ass, whose comment he may have removed, (so mine won't make sense now,) but I'll refrain from repeating it all here.

I will, however, say I, too, am appalled that it got this far and Congress has been dragged into it; I'm appalled the judiciary system thinks it can make this decision; I'm appalled a "husband" who has moved on a long time ago is still claiming he has her best interests at heart. Even if she did tell him (which I doubt) that she would never want all those feeding tubes, etc., if she didn't put it on paper, tough.

That piece of paper is all that protects the elderly, the disabled, and those who can't speak for themselves anymore from guardians who don't want to be burdened with them anymore. They're not taking Terri off a ventilator or withholding emergency care -- they're not giving her FOOD and WATER! When did that become a medical treatment? Withholding basics like food and water from someone who didn't put it down on paper that's what she wanted is, also, setting a very dangerous precedent. Who's next? The 98-year old Grandma who's incontinent and can't cook for herself and too confused to live on her own? Why bother with a nursing home? She's had a long life. Let's just not give her food and water and let nature take its course. The paraplegic who can't feed himself and has to be turned every two hours so he doesn't get bedsores can't have much quality of life, either.

What good is an independent judiciary that has forgotten the rights of those who can no longer speak for themselves? What good is the letter of the law, when the spirit of the law is dead?
 

I'm with ThePress on this one -- Congressional Republicans have jumped on to a purely political issue that appeals largely to the Christian/pro-life base. But more disturbingly, they've crossed Constitutional boundaries by asking the Federal court to re-examine this case. I suspect the judge will do exactly what he should and make the ruling the the feeding tube should be removed.

You can't say that you think our judicial system is wrong just because you don't agree with it. Congress can't and we as citizens can't. Whether you brand them as "liberal" judges or not, just remember, those "liberal" judges are making sure that the right wing nuts in Congress don't run things into the ground. Just like Congress and the Courts make sure the President doesn't go too far. It's checks and balances and it works.

Terri is in a persistant vegatative state. While "brain-dead" is not quite correct, she does have minimal brain activity. Essentially, the electrical impulses that keep her heart beating and some reflexes moving are firing but the woman that her husband and family knew as Terri has been gone for a long time. I'm most appaled by the family in this and their consistant denial. As if showing a news reporting a four-year-old video clip where her reflexes make her look like she's resonding will change doctor after doctor's diagnosis. If she would improve with rehab, don't you think they would have done it by now? Or even started? It's pure wishful thinking. And frankly, I applaud her husband for sticking with her this long to see that her final wishes can be dealt with. You want Christian love? That is Christian love. He still loves her to this day. And wants to release her body. Her soul -- what she was -- is already gone. Let her die in peace.
 

"So-called husband." What does the Repubs' "Defense of Marriage Act" have to say about "so-called husbands." Are they in a separate category. This Congress makes me want to hurl. Since I do believe it's representative by definition, it means that we the people have never been so gullible and ruled by our emotions. We deserve it all. We are pissing away our inheritance. If the Founding Fathers were alive today, they would leave the continent, find some new Indian tribes to conquer and START OVER.
 

NPR has had some great coverage of this issue in the past few days and a couple of images have stuck with me. They interviewed the doctor who was Terri's court appointed advocate in 2003. (Yes, contrary to some reports, she has had court appointed advocates.) Two things:

In Terri's family's depositions (remember, this case has been going on for seven years), it became clear that the family irrationally clung to the hope that Terri would recover. Michael's attorney pressed them: "what would do to save her? anythign?" "yes," They said. "What if she became diabetic, and the doctors recommended amputation of a limb, woud you do that?" Yes, they said. Would you do an arm, a leg? two arms? both legs? Yes, they doggedly replied to each question. OK, said the attorney, what if she she needed open heart surgery, would you do it? Yes, they said and on and on. It became apparent that their personal desires to cling to her far outweighed her own interest.

Second thing that stuck with me: An interviewer asked the obvious question, why doesn't Michael just divorce her. Michael Schaivo said he and Terri had attended several funerals with people as they were married. People who had died after months and years on life support. Terri said, "please don't ever let that happen to me." As all of us are young -- 28 , 35, 40, 45, we've all said, please don't let that be me. Well, folks, that is Terri, and her husband is trying to do the best thing for her.
 

Does Terri have interests? You keep saying that her creepy husband is protecting Terri's interests. How is that possible? She's "brain dead." She's "gone and has been gone for a long time," to quote her creepy husband. If Terri's not there, then why does it matter if her body continues if it gives comfort to her parents? Is there the doubt that maybe she's trapped in there? Is there the lingering thought that she might have some awareness? You can't have it both ways: Either Terri is gone, and then why shouldn't her parents be allowed to keep her body alive, or Terri isn't gone and then she needs to be kept alive because she's still there. Apply some logic instead of just parroting left-wing unreasoned thought.

By the by, I am a vigorous supporter of right-to-die and the right for terminally ill patients to end their own lives. If Terri had left instructions, then her instructions should have been followed. But she didn't leave any vertifiable instructions.

Isn't it better to err on the side of life?
 

"Apply some logic instead of just parroting left-wing unreasoned thought."

Whoa. I am wingless.

I will give quarter to any argument as to the merits of the case. That's really not what has me riled up. What has me rield up is that Congress dragged itself, and me by extension, into it.
 

Also this is political in that it's a way to attack the right-to-die movement. Without written instuctions, we should be supporting this effort to keep her alive or at least keeping our goddamn mouths shut. The point of right-to-die is we want the legal right to determine our fate when faced with a long painful death. We have fought battle after battle to get legal documents honored over objections of the church and the right. This knee-jerk response to the Terri's case doing nothing but hurting right-to-die in the long run. Right-to-die is really just the right to die with dignity. If Terri had wanted that right she should have made plans. She did not. This whole case is a fucking failure of foresight and intelligence.
 

I admit I may have meandered a bit, but what Jake's saying is my main point. Terri didn't write it out on paper. End of story. I am a supporter of right-to-die, but not without the signed, written paper of the one who is actually going to die.