Regarding this post..........agreed. Terri Schiavo has *not* died. She is a living, breathing (on her own) human being who is being refused the means to live (food). What are some folk missing here?
Lemme say.....were it me, would I want to live like that? No. IMHO, should the parents want to keep her alive in her state of disability? Probably not. It's likely a way-too-emotional decision to keep her alive.
First, I think the parents' emotional decision is heightened in reaction to her husband wanting to pull her means of support (food), and the courts ordering it to be done. Without such stress, the parents may have been content to let Terri go peacefully. In reaction to the vultures, the parents have made their decision, as they are two of many who have offered the means of support to keep Terri alive. But their decision is superceded by that of a husband who can present anything he wishes, into the court of law, as evidence. Oh sure, his word is scripture! By the way, the hubby has broken that "sacred" marriage contract - that I keep hearing about - by taking a common law wife, and having children with her. Therefore, is there a problem with him making Terri's life-or-death decisions? I'd bet so.
I do think some of the right-to-lifers are out of kilter on this, however, so are the court-worshipping, "rule-of-law" libertarians. There is no rule of law when court bandits lord it over the lives of individuals. Tom is right: this case presents society with hellish precedents for the next time senile grandma drools on herself or needs her diaper changed.
