[Antoninus]

That's not America.

Your America is apparently the land where a judge orders a disabled woman to be starved to death and defies any and all efforts to save her.

You can have your America. I spit on it.

[Trust but Verify]

The judge did not order it, it is the decision of her guardian. The judge recognizes Michael as her guardian. The law includes nourishment in the category of 'life support'. Seeing as the guardian has decided he wants life support removed, (whether you believe it is what Terri wanted or not is immaterial) that is what the judge is doing. He is following the law. Other judges all over this country have upheld the decision.

What part of this can't you understand?

[Wolfstar]

Your America is apparently the land where a judge orders a disabled woman to be starved to death and defies any and all efforts to save her. You can have your America. I spit on it.

First of all, the woman is not starving to death. We can survive longer without food than without fluid. So she will die from dehydration.

Second, there are much larger issues here than just the fate of this one woman. You, and others with your passionate point of view, could make something constructive come out of the Schiavo tragedy if you'd look up and see the wider issues. The Schiavo case IS NOT UNIQUE in any way except for the epic family feud involved.

What is occurring in her case happens in one way or another every day. Whether or not we want to be intellectually honest and call removal of life support, feeding tubes, etc., by it's real name, it is what it is. Euthanasia.

We have no national euthanasia policy. You, and others like you who have invested so much emotion in the Schiavo case, could make her death meaningful. Instead of the silly, juvenile "I spit on it," response, you could turn your activism toward working for passage of a well-reasoned national law governing euthanasia, and providing for cases similar to the Shaivo case.

Short of that, this case has been so much sound and fury, signifying nothing.