Politicians (and many religious people) generally enjoy a self-claimed high morality. When facing controversial issues, they always boast to embrace moral values.

In the case of Terri’s fate (at the time of this writing, she is dying for sure), George W. Bush, speaking for those conservatives, pompously declared: “… it is wise to always err on the side of life.”Ironically, during Bush’s term as Texas governor, he signed a bill to take away a patient’s life even though families strongly wished to preserve it.

Cynic reviewers have already lambasted on the hypocrisy and self-righteousness of those politicians. They believed that the impromptu passage of the Terri’s bill was motivated by their own morality, not by the rationality.Furthermore, some also voiced their concern that the bill was based on religious value, not on the secular fairness.

Nevertheless, to err is human, and to err on the side of life is a good human. This is the view many people hold.

When reviewing the court materials and news reports, it won’t take a genius to notice that the dominant view was that given Terri’s current medical conditions, she would wish to die if she could express herself. Although I personally hold this view too, a little uneasiness slowly starts to crawl in my mind. Why should I believe that Terri would behave this way? Why should I trust her husband’s claims instead of her parents’? Obviously, parents know more and deeper about their daughter than her husband does (considering only a couple years together between Terri and her husband). What if Terri wished to stay as the way she was and entertain their parents?

As their parents stated, Terri is Catholic. She would not take her life without God’s consent. She loved their parents. She would like to stay with them as long as life permits. Furthermore, many examples have shown that some people in coma or even in “persistent vegetative state” can recover some brain functionalities. Even if she is in persistent vegetative state, as Larry King put it, keeping Terri alive won’t hurt anyone. The only thing Terri needs is no more than a feeding tube. There was no financial problem (surely it was true before the prolonged litigation). Why was her husband so eager to kill her? To make thing worse, the way Terri dies is so cruel—she is starving and dehydrating to death.

Most importantly, “killing” Terri makes parents sad. They will lose their deeply loved one forever. The bottomline is “we want to have Terri live with us till the end of the day”.

Therefore, from the parents’ point of view, current court rulings are merciless and inhuman. It is a “legalized murder”.

Strategically, failing to transfer Terri’s guardianship from her husband to Terri parents is the most critical defeat. Losing the right of speak for Terri has many consequences.For example, Terri’s husband claimed that Terri once said she would not live on tube during a visit to their friends. However, people’s mind can change over time and in different situations. Law permits one can revise his/her living will as many times as he/she wishes. If the guardian is Terri’s parents, they can certainly provide many compelling evidence that Terri loves her family and her own life.She even cried on the death of her pets—a hearty story every kid has.

A major conclusion has been somewhat reached: there is no right answer in Terri’s case.

However, I still have two questions which seems there will be no definite answers.

First, what caused Terri’s husband, Mr. Shiavo to request the removal of feeding tube in the first place? Everybody said he is executing Terri’s will. How could he realize this?

Second, why does Mr. Shiavo stubbornly insist removing Terri’s feeding tube during the litigation? Is that more natural that if their parents want to preserve Terri, he just simply gives up his guardianship and lets it be? When Larry King asked Michael Shiavo why he did not divorce Terri to start a new life (since he indeed started a new life some years ago), he replied “I made a promise to Terri, …, I will stick by Terri.” Well, that says all.

To me, the Terri’s case is closed. Biologically she was dead more than ten years ago. However, the religious movement, the divided opinion on “right to die”, the constitutionality of Terri’s bill, and the balance of morality and legality will have immense implications in everybody’s life.

“To err on the side of life”. Yes, I agree. If Terri is my child, I will also fight for her life. Living in a nation of law, however, I endorse the court’s rulings.