🚀 go-pugleaf

Mike Smith wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 05:05:41 GMT, CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Web wrote:
>>
>>>"Tom Barrister" <tombarrister@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>>>news:1111727838.356170.23130@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>And please don't feed us the "She didn't want to live like this,"
>>>>baloney.
>>>
>>>
>>>You don't want the facts, huh?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>There seem to be a lot of folks like that.
>>
>>What I don't get is how/whether they'd honor her wishes if they'd
>>been written down in a living will -- the arguments being used by
>>the right wingers would seem to apply equally to that situation,
>>so presumably they _still_ would want to keep her plugged in to
>>extraordinary measures.  But I haven't heard any of them admit to
>>an unwillingness to honor living wills.
>>
>>And if they _would_ honor her wishes if they were in a document,
>>then they should honor her wishes _however_ expressed, and as
>>determined by multiple courts after careful consideration of all
>>the evidence.
> 
> 
> You people are so gullible. 
> 
> She never expressed her wishes. If she had, she would have died a
> decade ago.
> 
> Her husband, after 7 years, stated that she would not want to live
> like this, based on conversations she had with her friends. According
> to him, she never expressed an opinion to him. Now, how come those
> "friends" have not come forth and stated what she wanted. How come
> none of those friends ever appeared in any of the court proceedings?
> Are they imaginary "friends"? Or are they convenient "friends", so
> Michael can marry his girlfriend after Terri is dead?
> 
> Mike Smith

The courts that have heard the evidence seem to disagree with you.

-- 
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam.  Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.