Oh I see, you thought she had a living will. She didn't. That was why the courts got involved. If she had a living will, she'd have been dead years
ago. Somewhere in this thread (maybe the one about the stand off) I defined a living will for those who were confused on the board.
It's a legal, written document that has to be notarized. Terri didn't have one of those. This "living will" that YOU'RE talking about is hearsay
and not legally binding. My issue was that Mike would have had the legal authority to have Terri taken off of "life support" (feeding tubes don't
fall into this category) if she was PVS.. but there is conclusive evidense that she was not, but rather in a semi-conscious state. One where she could
understand simple language, commands, and recognise familiar people.
Her state could better be described as severly mentally ill or severly retarded. If you're one of those who thinks that a judge has enough background
in medicine to make a diagnosis, I offer you this site
contains a number of documented tests dating to as recently as 2003 which prove that Terri lacked the necessary symptoms to have been diagnosed as
PVS. Our understanding of PVS has actually changed quite a bit since Terri was first diagnosed that way.
If you can disregard everything you've heard in the news and review the actual doctor statements, experiments (and maybe read up a little bit on
neuro phisiology), and affidavits it might change your mind on how this case LEGALLY went down. Disregarding the ethics of the matter (which is where
we get most of our polarization regarding Terri), you might find that the judge who ruled in favor of Michael may have actually overstepped HIS
Now, I'm not a neurologist but I've taken neurology and neuropathology and posted a few things I learned about the human brain. Medical scans
(available on the net, I'm supposing) of Terri's brain showed activity in parts that shouldn't have any activity if she were truly PVS. You were
part of the discussion, but here it is
in case you didn't read it. If you did and
didn't care, then that's ok too, but I'm not BSing. Neurology is very tricky and it's not always as simple as one doctor giving a diagnosis (which
usually turn out to be simple opinions with more than one motivation). But the facts are out there.
I'm saying that if there WERE a legal, notarized (not verbalized) living will or trust, this whole thing would have been obviously legal and over a
long time ago. I think the fight was really more along the lines of "is she in a state where Mike could legally DECIDE that she should be allowed to
die" which a judge ruled that she was when legally she wasn't. That is called the rule of law? A judge can do just about anything which I think is
Besides, the bill passed only stated that the parents would be allowed to appeal to a federal court... which ruled in favor of Mike anyway, but what
harm could it have done to have MORE judges look at the case? I think that this became a legal, then political issue when all it should ever have been
was a medical issue.
But then again, I'm a medical student so I might have a bias as to what type of issue it should have been
[edit on 7-4-2005 by ServoHahn]