while i can see both sides--her husband claims she would not want exhaustive measures while her parents holds out hope for their daughter--the courts have extensively examined and re-examined the issue.
i don't understand the legalities, but i'm still not sure why her husband who is apparently engaged to another woman would maintain guardianship. if he has plans to move on with his life, perhaps guardianship should revert to the family.
that being said, this last minute effort by congressional republicans appears to be (at least partially) an attempt to appease a 'right-to-life' base.
march 19th update: after reviewing a solid summary (as objective a source as i have found) of this terrible case, i believe once the courts determined (based partially on michael's word) that terri would not have wanted extraordinary life-prolonging efforts, this would be a difficult ruling to overturn.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment