| viet_mom |
03-22-2005 02:30 PM |
Screw the law, chad87655 has spoken
[Guardian Ad Litem Report] Interesting report. Thanks for posting. It seems to dismiss the idea that the hubby is doing this b/c of $$. But if the law really seeks to determine what (absent a living will) Theresa said about artificial life support, then I think there's a major problem here. When she first collapsed, the hubby was apparently aware of all the statements his wife had allegedly made about not wanting artificial life support. But despite evidence of the chronicness of her state, he went on for years (I suppose against her wishes to die, then, if you believe she made the statements the hubby says she made) fighting hard for her to keep the tube and get her the best care.
In all fairness, maybe he thought she could recover and when in 1994 he first asked that some care be refused, he was starting to accept that she wasn't going to recover even though the medical evidence showed from the beginning that she wasn't going to improve much. That's touching, but what sort of treatment Terri would have wanted (i.e., convincing evidence in the absence of a living will) should not depend on when her husband decided to throw in the towel. Terri's hearsay statements seem colored by the fact that the husband trotted them out only after he stopped hoping for her recovery. |
