3/24    So the husband want the tube removed. Is it because of money? Why
        doesn't he just hand over her to her parents if he doesn't
        want to deal with it? Think about this for a sec, who would
        you trust more, your partner or your parents in this matter?
        This is a bit scary, the parents cannot do anything about it.
        Although I think the whole thing is stupid, I think something
        about it bothers me. I think most people would prefer a
        sleeping pill over a slow week long starvation death.
        \_ The law respects the word of the spouse over the parents
           in the absence of mitigating circumstances because this
           is the person who is supposed to be closest to you, and
           the marriage contract encompasses this agreement.  Suppose
           you told your spouse you wanted her to have your posessions
           and children when you died.  Would you want her to go through
           court battles with your parents if they decided they wanted
           a piece?
           What's amusing is laying this whole situation alongside the
           "sanctity of marriage" arguments against gay unions.
                \_ ha, good point there.
           \_ Her husband pissed away any sanctity when he started having sex
              with another woman in 1992 while he was telling a court "I have
              to have $20M to take care of Terri for the rest of my life."
              \_ Okay, alternative history that actually makes sense.  Terri's
                 heart stops, and causes brain damage, leaving her in a PVS.
                 Michael sues for malpractice and wins (presumably because it
                 actually WAS malpractice).  The money goes to Terri's care
                 (as she would have been the plaintiff in the malpractice suit,
                 that's where it should go).  After some time, Terri's condition
                 has deteriorated.  Terri's parents urge Michael to get out
                 and meet people.  Terri's condition worsens.  The doctors tell
                 him her brain has atrophied, and her chances of coming out of
                 him her brain has liquified, and her chances of coming out of
                 it are nil.  He says this is not how she would want to live.
                 Looking back at it, from the outside, not knowing the person,
                 a commentator can make any step of this look sordid.  If you
                 look at it forward, it doesn't make as good television, but
                 it makes a hell of a lot more sense.
                 \_ He didn't even mention her desire to "not live this way"
                    until 1997, after he was "engaged" to his current
                    girlfriend.  He should have divorced her and let her
                    parents take care of her.
                    \_ What if there were some hope of recovery in the first
                       x years, and she had gotten worse actually by 1997?
                       \_ He stopped all therapy in 1995 and has kept her in a
                          hospice (fraudulently).  He's prevented people from
                          any theraputic action, providing antibiotics for an
                          infection or even BRUSHING HER TEETH.
                          \_ What is your source on this info?
                             \_ I think his source is called 'fictional'.
                          \_ Yeah, so how about x = 5?
        \_ but sleeping pills don't kill.
           \_ No, I am talking about you take lots and die in sleep.
              \_ That would be called premeditated murder, especially after
                 15 years.
        \_ People in this position starve to death all the time.  (Or,
           dehydrate to death, as is more likely the case.)  This is more
           or less what happened with my grandmother.  She had untreatable
           cancer, and she slept more and more until she no longer woke up
           to eat.
        \_ Let me ask a stupid question. Can the husband date/marry
           another person IF he choose to keep the feeding tube? If
           she's in this state for another 20 years, then is the
           husband 'tied' to her for another 20 years?
                \_ technically, he's already married (by common law, since
                   he's been living with another woman for over 10 years)
                                                                \_ pimp!
                   \_ Most states have eliminated common-law marriage and in
                      any case they don't apply when you're already married.
                      \_ In this case, if he and the other woman split, the
                         courts would probably treat it akin to a marriage.
                         This case show up when couples don't divorce for
                         religious reasons. It gets messy....
        \_ You know, I am really annoyed that the government stuck its
           nose in this case, but for the life of me, I cannot understand
           why her husband didn't just hand over custody to her parents either.
           \_ As I understand it he wants to marry his common-law wife and has
              a financial interest in his legal wife being officially dead.
              \_ That's a hell of an allegation.  Where did you hear about any
                 financial interest?
              \_ He could just divorce her. I am suspicious of all the slander
                 regarding money. I really don't know, one way or another, but
                 it smells like your classic Right Wing smear campaign to me.
                 Are the Swifties behind it?
              \_ fucker, just hand over the girl to the parent.
              \_ What financial incentive? He's kept a lawyer on retainer
                 and in court for 15 years. The government or whatever health
                 org will demand repayment from whatever money recieved. If
                 there is money involved, it'll be gone once the lawsuits
                 start flying...
           \_ Which do you believe:
              (1) Hubbie really cared about his wife, she really did tell him
                  that he should pull the plug if she became a vegetable and
                  there was no hope she could recover to the point where she
                  could say something about this.
              (2) Hubbie just wanted her dead so he could be rid of his "old
                  life", and didn't want her parents bothering him anymore.
                  Anyways, now he just wants the problem to go away, and what
                  better way than for her to be dead.
                  (2a) There were monetary benefits too.
              (3) Hubbie didn't really care about his wife, she never told him
                  to pull the plug, but he thinks she would feel that way
                  (he personally would want to die in that situation), so
                  he thinks he's doing her a favor even though he could be
                  wrong.  Anyways, it's been 15 years and she's only gotten
                  worse.
               \_ Hubbie didn't pull the media and Congress into this.  Hubbie
                  wasn't looking for notoriety.  This is such bullshit.  In a
                  sane world, we wouldn't have heard about this case.  They
                  would have worked it out within the family, and if not, the
                  court decision would have ended the discussion and Terri
                  would be at peace.  This is a travesty caused by politicians.
               \_ 2. If you really love someone, the last thing you would do
                     is to pull the plug.
                  \_ bullshit
                  \_ Spoken like someone whose never seen a loved one in
                     real pain.
                     \_ Seriously.  *sheesh*
                     \_ you haven't peered into the human psyche until you
                        see this situation and one sibling is clinging
                        desparately to "daddy" while the other is trying
                        to let him go.  then the fur flies...
        \_ No sleeping pills. That's murder. You become an active participant
           in death. She's feet away from a trauma center. There isn't much
           you can do to kill her without someone stepping in. Spouses have
           precedence because you actively chose them. As for why the husband
           hasn't given up custody, it's probably for the same reason why
           the parents haven't let her die. Love can be a brutal thing.
           \_ Actually, in Oregon, as a patient diagnosed with a terminal
              illness, you can legally request a lethal dose of drugs.
              The problem is you have to be judged of sound mind when you ask
              for it, and you have to swallow them yourself.  Accomplishing
              all that, it's still legal for both the person killing themself
              and the prescriber.
              \- If Charles Dickens were alive today, Bleak House II would be
                 Schiavo v. Schiavo instead of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce. --psb
                 \_ "Bleak House Two: This time it's political!"