There's nothing really significant about her life or death. Like Deepa Chopra mentioned a few minutes ago (on CNN) "40 000 children died of hunger today and another 40 000 will die tomorrow. How come you don't see any one of them on TV?".
So one group who loved her wanted her alive, another group who loved her wanted her dead. In both cases (and I guess in every conceivable case), love is selfish. Parents wanted to hold on to the physical-- Terri was physically alive and they wanted to hold on to whatever they had of her -- and maybe they had hope. You have to respect that. Her husband wanted to end her life because "that's what she would have wanted" and as a loving husband wanted to honor his wife's wishes. you have to respect that too. It never made one shit difference for Terri herself whether she's alive or dead. I mean what difference does it make to anyone whether or not they "get what they want" if they're in 100% vegetitive state? Morally, it could have gone either way. The husband won, his conscience is cleared, and he feels (or will feel) better knowing that he did "what she wanted". The parents could have won and kept hugging and touching and talking to her -- and it wouldn't had made any difference to Terri. When you think about it, "what she would have wanted" is also irrelevant. Would she have "wanted" her parents to suffer as they did and are? Maybe knowing what she would know today, she would have taken the position "sure, keep me alive. My parents want to hold on to me. keep me alive. I'm oblivious .. makes no difference to me."
Again, the real (and only) tragedy here is the fact that we (society) ended the life of human being by dehydrating her. We wouldn't dare do that to sick dog or horse but it was apparently legal to do that to a human being. That is scary and morally wrong.
So one group who loved her wanted her alive, another group who loved her wanted her dead. In both cases (and I guess in every conceivable case), love is selfish. Parents wanted to hold on to the physical-- Terri was physically alive and they wanted to hold on to whatever they had of her -- and maybe they had hope. You have to respect that. Her husband wanted to end her life because "that's what she would have wanted" and as a loving husband wanted to honor his wife's wishes. you have to respect that too. It never made one shit difference for Terri herself whether she's alive or dead. I mean what difference does it make to anyone whether or not they "get what they want" if they're in 100% vegetitive state? Morally, it could have gone either way. The husband won, his conscience is cleared, and he feels (or will feel) better knowing that he did "what she wanted". The parents could have won and kept hugging and touching and talking to her -- and it wouldn't had made any difference to Terri. When you think about it, "what she would have wanted" is also irrelevant. Would she have "wanted" her parents to suffer as they did and are? Maybe knowing what she would know today, she would have taken the position "sure, keep me alive. My parents want to hold on to me. keep me alive. I'm oblivious .. makes no difference to me."
Again, the real (and only) tragedy here is the fact that we (society) ended the life of human being by dehydrating her. We wouldn't dare do that to sick dog or horse but it was apparently legal to do that to a human being. That is scary and morally wrong.