|
I really try to see both sides here. I realize that I don't know Michael Shievo's intentions or motives any better than any of you do. Really, Michael is the only one that knows the answer to that.
I also don't like that it will take weeks for her to die. I really wish there was a way to end her life sooner but that isn't going to happen.
The thing I keep falling back on though, is that this case has been heard something like 23 times in the courts. They have always reached the same verdict. Terry cannot recover from this, her wishes were to not be kept alive, and Michael has the legal right to act on her behalf. I have a very hard time understanding how, out of all of those courtrooms, a reasonable doubt to the contrary was never persuasively made if there actually was reasonable doubt. I don't believe that the courts have any sort of "death wish" for Terry. That just doesn't make sense. What makes sense is that they have heard the testimony of her loved ones and of impartial medical experts and have decided that, based on that evidence, this is the proper course of action. I believe that most judges are good, impartial, people who of course would err on the side of caution if they felt any of the contradicting arguments had any merit.
What Terry's parents have presented though is heavily edited video footage trying to show their daughters condition in the best possible light. It isn't enough though that in the video she can appear responsive. The question is, is there any evidence of it being repeatable, or are these merely random movements. The consensus among respectable doctors is that her actions are entirely random and not unusual for someone who has lost their cerebral cortex. Yes, the parents have doctors on their side, doctors that are being paid because they will say what the parents want. There is no impartiality there. Still, the courts heard their side and dismissed it as not being credible.
Then the right to lifers jump in full force and paint anyone that disagrees with their stance as having a "death wish" for Terry. Sorry, but it isn't as simple as that. The politicians see the opportunity to further strengthen their base and jump in "to help" when they really have no authority to do so. It is maddening.
I can only speak for myself but I don't wish for anyone to die. I do believe in erring on the side of caution, whether in this case or a capital punishment case. But exactly how much caution can you exercise? If we keep this woman alive for the rest of her natural life through artificial means, we are going against her wishes. We are going against the wishes of the person who has the legal right to make these decisions for her. What does that say? You have rights unless we disagree with them? That's not how it works. You either have legal rights or you don't, and in this case, the law is on Michael and Terry's side.
I understand how much the parents love their daughter and I feel an enormous amount of pain for them. How horrific this must be. I also know that when you love someone that much, you may not make the most rational decisions. Are they trying to keep Terry alive for her or for them? When my mother was suffering from terminal cancer, I wanted the doctors to do everything possible to extend her life for every moment possible but she had no quality of life. She was no longer able to function anymore. She wasn't going to get better. At some point I realized that it was for selfish reasons that I wanted to keep her alive. I realized that she wouldn't want to continue in the condition she was in. Luckily, we never had to make that decision because the end came very quickly and there was nothing anyone could do about it. And as heartbroken as I was when she passed away, there was also a strong sense of relief. I hope the parents experience that one day. Once the healing process begins, maybe they can see that they really lost their daughter a long long time ago.
|