That's exactly what worries me. The disabled need to know they have protection.... what happens if a disgruntled family member decides to shove ol' sis off this planet? There HAS to be some boundaries. If it were merely this one case at stake I wouldn't be as upset...it is the rights of disabled people everywhere that are at stake.

I'm not arguing the needs of the terminal, and the end of life decisions. I AM supporting protection for the disabled no matter how disabled they are. Teri is just ONE case, but it has ramifications for all disabled people because she is NOT at the end of life, nor is she terminal....she IS severely disabled.

In an ideal world family members would always have the best interests of their "loved ones" at heart. However, in our world things are far from Ideal. Our society is plagued by child abuse, spouse abuse, elder abuse, and yes, abuse of the disabled. This is why things like childrens services, safe houses, and senior services exist.....to protect those who are weak and need our protection. This is why they MUST exist. Teri's case threatens ALL disabled people. If Teri is starved/dehydrated to death, then ALL disabled people are at risk....they in fact lose their right to...."life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and we become an America only for those deemed "non-disabled"

Cynthia-
You do have a very valid point...there is no one that can judge what a person's quality of life is except for that person themself. And it does seem as though her wishes previous to the heart attack were not crystal clear.

To everyone...my intention for posting this (besides to start a good discussion) is to urge everyone (doesn't matter how old you are) to discuss this with your families. Know what their wishes are, and make sure they know what your wishes are. Ideally, put it in writing but at the very least make sure more than one person knows! This situation happens a lot more frequently than we would like to admit, and it is heartbreaking as a physician to have to A)broach these subjects for the FIRST time as a patient is in the situation (instead of beforehand) and B) watch families become torn up over this...

moved to debate forum....

In any case where there is no living will on record, the next of kin must show the courts "clear and convincing" evidence that the patient did not want life sustaining efforts and that the patient was not likely to recover.

All of the husband's doctors as well as the court-appointed doctors have agreed that this woman is in a PVS and will not recover. In fact, her CT scans show that most of her cerebral cortex has deteriorated to the point that she could not recover. The parents are hanging on the idea that, with therapy, she could regain some of her ability.

This case has been in the courts for at least 10 years. The husband and parents have been arguing over whether she made her wishes clear to anyone. Clearly, the courts believed that the husband had shown enough evidence to order removal of the feeding tube. As to his motives, he has not been living with this woman for a decade. He only began dating again within the last 2 years or so. He has said that he remained married to her so that he can remain her legal guardian because he believed that she would not want to be kept alive artificially and he knew that her parents would never allow the tube to be removed.

While the courts saw the entirety of her parents' video of Terri and heard testimony from a number of doctors, the legislature did none of this. This law was a knee-jerk reaction to letters they were receiving from people who saw an excerpt from that video on the parents' website. The video excerpt makes it appear that she can respond and has some awareness of her surroundings. Apparently, when viewed as a whole, in context, it becomes more clear that she has no conscious response.

I could only hope that my husband would have the forethought to not divorce me in the same situation. I can only imagine what decisions my own family would make! It seems to me that there's no benefit to him in Terri's death. He could divorce her at any time. He has moved on with his life. Whether or not they are married should not determine what happens to a settlement that was awarded 10+ years ago. (No matter if it is mostly spent or not...it was likely disbursed soon after the judgement). So what would it benefit him to stay married to her except to see that her wishes are carried out?

Bev~

While this is certainly impassioned, it is flawed because the Declaration of Independence holds no weight in a court of law. It was a document written as a declaration of war. It's analogous to saying that a particularly eloquent speech sending us to war with Iraq holds some weight for generations 200 years from now in their court decisions.

The Constitution is relatively silent on the issue; however the Supreme Court decided in the Cruzan case that the patient--or the next of kin--were well within their rights to decide what measures should be taken to extend life.

Bev~

The problem with this case is that contrary to what people may beleive...feeding is not considered life support. For this reason, Terri is not considered to be on life support.

While I have not personally seen the video, there are others who have seen it in it's entirty...one person I can think of is Dr. James Dobson who said of his viewing....that she DOES appear to respond, although at a low level. Terry CAN say a few words such as "Momma". people in a PVS CANNOT speak even a few words. That is by definition of PVS.

The questions remains if family have the right to starve her to death. This is obviously a very "heated" issue for many. I think we must look at what the rights are of every other member of society. Although most parents have the best interests of their children at heart and parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit, they DO NOT have the right to starve their children, nor do they have the right to abuse their children. Our rights as parents end where our childrens rights begin. The same can be said of spouses or the elderly. We DO have the right to do what we see as best for our families. However, those rights end where our family members rights begin.

Teri has not indicated that she wished to die of starvation. Her husband says he "might" remember one instance where she "might" have said that she did not wish to be on life support. As I've said before, Teri is not on life support.


The issue of "life sustaining efforts" applies to the "end of life" issues surrounding those individuals who are in the process of dying. Teri is NOT in the process of dying. She IS a disabled individual whose husband "thinks" she would have desired to be starved to death. This differs from "life sustaining efforts" given as a patient faces the end of life.

Teri's husbands rights end where Teri's rights begin. No matter how disabled she may be, she is entitled to be protected just as our children are entitled to be protected.