Marta Russell wrote:
>> Kelley wrote:
>>
>> Under my terms, she had expressed the desire not to be kept alive by
>> a machine under those particular conditions. She should have thr
>> right to do that, just as blind kids should have a right not to have
>> corrective eye surgery forced on them.
>
>
> There is no evidence that is what Terri expressed. It is what her
> husband (who has a new family now and will not give her a divorce)
> claims she wants and her parents differ. I agree with Nat Hentoff on
> this. The evidence is not there. The court ruled without sufficient
> evidence. They make mistakes, ask some death row inmates.
My understanding is that 3 people - the husband and 2 other family members - testified in the original trial that they heard TS say she wouldn't want to be kept alive. (They had all been sitting around discussing these issues one evening after visiting a relative in the hospital.) Marta, is it your view that without a living will no one should have care withdrawn? Or just that there was insufficient evidence in this particular case?
Seth