TamiO,
I understand that the parents of terri S. have filed a petition to continue her life. In the US the power of attorney usualy devoves to the able spouse to make decisions for the unable spouse.
I have not read all the medical evidence but most reports are that this woman is brain dead above the brain stem, a very different experience tha someone who is still hearing and understanding the words spoken around them.
If there was reason to beleive that the husband was abusive or trying to profit from Ms. Schiavo's death then I can undertsand her parent's concern.
But I do not understand why the family has a right to keep Ms/ Schiavo alive against the wishes of her husband, especialy since there is no higher cortical functioning. I wonder if the surviving spouse will have to continue to watch the empty shell of his wife continue to live just because there is some born again in the Florida govenor's mansion?
This is stepping into a very strong legal right of american's, the right to chose to refuse medical treatment, it is part of the right to life mania. In the usa you have the unconditional right to refuse medical treatment, except for the case of a minor.
Why has the legislature chosen to interfere with the legal rights of a duly wedded couple, why should Mr. Schivo be forced to incur debt and agony. He is the gaurdian of his wife.
The danger in this is the same as always, the state stepping in to make a medical decision , in the place of the legaly designated spouse. Or by extension, the problem with a tort based system, into the legal right of any competant adult to decide thier own medical fate. What overwhelming concern is there for the state, if they could get a panel of twenty doctors of which 5 said that this woman had a chance to recover her higher brain function, then I understand.
But what right does the state have to just chose this one case and go against the wishes of the legal spouse's authority.
See there are many roblems with this kind of case, it is the extensions that is dangerous, will family memebers be able to over-ride the wishes of a comatose person and force them to have chemotherapy?
What about all the other family issues.
I mainly am concerned that this is a medical decision for Mrs. S.'s husband to make, the state has not demonstrated a clear reason to over-ride the right he has to make the decision he feels his wife wanted.
