OK, I've read at least the general timeline on the site peachtess posted. It certainly seems at least mostly unbiased, from a legal standpoint. (Not to mention, the timeline is easier to follow than the legal one on "Terri's Fight.")
Put it this way: if we were married, you were trying to let me go because there was little-to-no hope of my recovering, and my mother tried to fight it, would you say that was grounds for your guardianship of me to be terminated? No matter how well intentioned my parents were in the offer to take care of me, if you were POSITIVE I wouldn't want to live under those circumstances.
I'm asking mostly because peachtess' site's legal documentation (PDFs of the actual decisions) directly contradicts the parents' claim that the husband has never done anything in the way of care or rehabilitation.
*sigh* I still don't like the idea of a starvation death. But if my brain was half-rotted away, and I was only partially aware of my environment, I don't think I'd want to keep living like that, either. I risked the volume (which was actually pretty low) and watched the videos on the parents' site earlier today, and that's what I'm seeing. Not someone who has any cognizance "That's my mom, this is my family, I'm in a hospice/nursing home, I want XYZ." I see someone reacting at a pretty basic level, maybe even a trained level -- but not actively capable of want or complex recognition.
I feel for the parents, but I'm becoming more convinced they're grasping at straws in any hope for a meaningful recovery -- especially by bringing the Pope into it. (Yes, though not directly, just one of his writings on "This is what Catholics should believe.") peachtess's site shows they don't just want her to live, but actually expect a meaningful recovery. At this point, even if there was cognitive therapy that might have been helpful, it's many years too late if parts of her brain have dissolved.
In short, the media's done a terrible job of giving any real in-depth coverage to any of this. They're going for the emotional sensationalism (regardless of left-or-right bias), and I'm currently pretty disgusted it's gotten this much publicity with so little actual content. s:P~
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-03-23 06:21 pm (UTC)Put it this way: if we were married, you were trying to let me go because there was little-to-no hope of my recovering, and my mother tried to fight it, would you say that was grounds for your guardianship of me to be terminated? No matter how well intentioned my parents were in the offer to take care of me, if you were POSITIVE I wouldn't want to live under those circumstances.
I'm asking mostly because
*sigh* I still don't like the idea of a starvation death. But if my brain was half-rotted away, and I was only partially aware of my environment, I don't think I'd want to keep living like that, either. I risked the volume (which was actually pretty low) and watched the videos on the parents' site earlier today, and that's what I'm seeing. Not someone who has any cognizance "That's my mom, this is my family, I'm in a hospice/nursing home, I want XYZ." I see someone reacting at a pretty basic level, maybe even a trained level -- but not actively capable of want or complex recognition.
I feel for the parents, but I'm becoming more convinced they're grasping at straws in any hope for a meaningful recovery -- especially by bringing the Pope into it. (Yes, though not directly, just one of his writings on "This is what Catholics should believe.")
In short, the media's done a terrible job of giving any real in-depth coverage to any of this. They're going for the emotional sensationalism (regardless of left-or-right bias), and I'm currently pretty disgusted it's gotten this much publicity with so little actual content. s:P~