On Thu, 24 Mar 2005, Marta Russell wrote:
> As I told Kelley, I agree with Nat Hentoff that there is no convincing
> evidence that Terri expressed a desire not to be kept alive. Her parents
> don't either. Who would you believe - a husband who waited 7 years to say
> that Terri told him she would want to die and now has a new family in his
> life - or a mother and father who have no conflict of interest.
This is exactly what disturbs me about this case: people who have heard partial and biased media representations of the family members weigh in as if they have all the relevant information. This has been in the courts for years, and judges much better informed than anyone on this list--including Marta!--have ruled again and again the same way on this matter. The speculations of Nat Hentoff or any other media hack who's read something in the NYT or their favorite blog are completely irrelevant here. To channel Justin for a moment, the rule of law is a good thing: without it, we're more likely to make arbitrary, inconsistent, and outright bad decisions about important social matters. Granted, the rule of law does not insure perfect decisions, but consider the alternative!
In a way, Marta's position reminds me of the intelligent design crowd: ignore all the credentialled professionals on this topic, play on common sense and emotion, leave aside well established procedures for establishing the validity of claims. "I just know I'm right! Look at how awful Michael is!" It doesn't matter if it's third hand hearsay; if it fits in with preconceived assumptions, it should be treated as the truth.
I say all this reluctantly, because I respect Marta's work immensely. However, her brazen disregard for the facts of the case--and the rigorous, repeated legal procedures to clarify the facts of the case--is disturbing to me.
Miles