Kane said:
You know it is really simple solution for the husband if he doesn't want to pay for his wife. Terry's family has explained that they will take care of the expenses so why doesn't the husband just get a divorce instead of kill her? He can't afford the treatment, give me a break. He has alternatives.
Not being able to afford the expensive and extensive efforts to keep Terry's shell (which she's vacated) breathing is the LEAST of the considerations, and really....it's not one that the husband has brought up, but it's been brought up elsewhere by those who are trying to claim that his following through with his late wife's expressed will is actually merely motivated by money. Seems he (Robert) brought it up to make a point about the case in Texas that Pres. Bush treated differently when he was Gov. Bush.
Like I said before, the husband DID have over $700,000 from the court case concerning the medication that lead to Terry's initial heart attack. He's spent ALL of it and a LOT more on Terry's care. Doesn't sound like he's squeemish about paying at all.
YOU aren't in this situation. When caring long term for a person in a vegetative state....YOU must go on with the rest of your life. You still have to pay your rent/mortgage. You still have to pay the dentist, eat, pay for your car. Life doesn't cut you slack (generally) just becuase you have this ENORMOUS, but needed, expense. The cost just to have someone in a hospital bed for a week would set
MOST middle income people back in their family budget for some time!!! I can't imagine a decade and a half!!!
Like it or not, it IS a consideration. Not the primary one. Maybe not even in the top ten, but it is in there.
BUT: In the end, it's not even the point.
She said she didn't want to be kept alive in such a case.
Told her husband, who by all legal presedence SHOULD have the say so in this case. The parents shouldn't even have a claim, legally. A voice? SURE!! Say so? No.
But now, this way things have always been has been violated, the whole ordeal turned into a national, or greater, scandal and debate by people who only have a partial view and a Huge emotional reaction.
IT IS A SHAME, ALL of it!
BTW: This talk of "Why not take out other people"...like mere invalids or mentally handicapt or others...is irrelevent and
SICK!!!!
Your Brother
John
PS: Kane, I've not just looked into a few articles. I've really researched it because I was/am really concerned about the principles at play and the presedents being set. Still am. I have researched it and continue to research it.
What have you done? You say you've done the same. NEITHER of us are THERE, neither are IN this horrid situation. We are observers and we bring to it our own preconcieved notions. We must challenge these biases and notions in light of FACT, not emotional sentiment.
If your view never changes, check your lens.