[quote:15rhef0i]Thanks for the explanation.
The perspective on euthanasia in secular society up here is a little different, because the lobby for it is larger and we’re generally a more liberal country, but that does strike me as… I don’t know how to put it. I can’t see how letting someone starve to death over a fortnight is being kind to them. If people are willing to pay for her complete care, and look after her, I don’t think that an unwillingness to watch someone suffer means that they have to be made to stop suffering through whatever means possible[/quote:15rhef0i]
1) If Terri had [b:15rhef0i]really[/b:15rhef0i] said that she didn’t want a feeding tube (as her husband claims) then why did he allow her to have the feeding tube in the first place?
2) No extraordinary measures is one thing; not allowing the nurses to turn Terri or brush her teeth is another thing. Terri had to have several teeth removed because they had never been brushed and she developed bed sores because she was infrequently washed and turned.
3) Quite a bit of money on the line for a guardianship which was in name only and not in fact. Where were the reports that the husband was supposed to file?
4) And a marriage which was in name only and not in fact, since the husband had taken up with a girlfriend and had two children by her. Obviously a conflict of interest. Why did Judge Greer continue to rule for Terri’s death?
5) Not wanting to see Terri suffer? Or not wanting to inconvenience himself(the husband)?