The more I think about this, the more I can't see a reason why Michael wouldn't have her best interests in mind. It's not like she would be a burden to him and he wants to kill her off--her parents have already elected to take care of her. It wouldn't effect him. I can't see why he would have evil intentions. He must really think that she would've wanted to die. I guess this is irrelevant, but if you were the equivalent of a baby who would never grow up and could not feel or speak and had nearly the lowest quality of life possible, wouldn't you want to die as well? I think most people in that situation would want to just leave this world.
And the fact that he moved on doesn't say anything, IMO, as Kelly said. She may not literally be dead but she is for all practical purposes. I can't even see how it would do anything to go see her in the hospital, as she has no idea what's going on and probably wouldn't know who her husband is, from what I understand.
My brother thought I was being a bitch yesterday, but I said that I think the parents are being "self-serving" to want to keep her "alive." I say this because I think they are only serving themselves in doing so. They're not ready to let go of her so they want to keep her alive. Living is not benefitting her. I understand not wanting to let go of someone. I'm not saying that I have no sympathy but I do think it's self-serving. At the same time, I don't know if I'd have the strength to let someone go myself. I never want to let go of people I love.
Also, is this not what happens when you don't write up a living will and you're married? Legally, the husband makes the decision about whether or not to "pull the plug" for lack of a more eloquent phrase. I'm not saying the law is always right by any means, but is that not the law? In a sense, that makes me wonder why it's such a controversy, especially sense I'm sure there are many similar cases out there that just aren't all over the media like this one is.
|