Reply #152: Let's clear some things up [View All]

[zoe1]

Ok, a few of you have said things like "she has been suffering for 12 years" "she is being kept alive artificially", "we should let her die", etc.

None of those things are true. She has not been hooked up to machines, like a respirator or machines to keep her organs going. THAT is what people mean when they say "hooked up to machines" or "being kept alive artificially".

The only thing Terri has is a feeding tube. And that is because she needs to be re-taught to eat, speak, etc, but her husband has continually denied her any therapy for the last 10 years. She CAN swallow, that is obvious because he does not drool. Look at the videos. She could be taught to feed herself again, but even if she can't.... she is still a human being. It is not uncommon for people to live with feeding tubes. There are hundreds of thousands of people who live with a feeding tube, in hospitals or nursing homes. Should we kill them all? Rose Kennedy lived with a feeding tube, and no one said "she is being kept alive artifically, let's kill her".

You said: "So my question is..is it so wrong to let nature take its natural course, that had no one intervened all those years ago, the woman would have been freed to move on....and conversely so would the family"


Letting nature take it's course is NOT starving someone to death. She was not "dying", she has been living for the last 12 years, brain damaged but still laughing, smiling, showing emotions.... And all of that is without the therapy she needs to improve. That is just with minimal care. So to say "we should just let her die" is wrong, she was NOT dying. Not until last Wednesday when they started starving her to death!

You said: "I personally would not want to trap any of my loved ones in a shell of a body"

How do you know what you would want unless you yourself are in that situation? You can speculate, but there are thousands of people who get into accidents, become paralyzed, or brain damaged, and yet still want to live. And even if that IS what you'd want, who are you to say that Terri wants to die? Everyone is saying that she wants to live except her husband who has a clear conflict of interest. He will inhererit a few hundred thousand dollars if she dies. Also - there are some allegations that he was the one who put her in that condition in the first place. But there has never been an investigation. Many people are saying that it appears he doesn't want her to get better and be able to speak and tell what really happened to her. He has a number of motives, so is what he says trustworthy?

I think the fact that she has survived for the last 12 years and has gone through a lot, a few illnesses - which he refused to allow her antibiotics for (she got well on her own) shows that she has a will to live. And even now, she is on Day 6 of the court ordered starvation, and she is hanging on and fighting for her life - that shows a strong will to live.