Perhaps if the Congress would show some gonads and decisively address these kind of issues, rather than worrying about re-election and special interest groups, the judiciary would not be placed in such a position of importance. But it is exactly the failure of congress that precipitates the alleged abuses by the courts.
And in this case I say the words "alleged abuses" because it appears that over 60% of the people in America agree with the courts and their numerous reviews and decisions in this case. So it looks like the majority believe that all has been done, the medical reviews have been re-reviewed numerous times, the patient has not shown improvement, and she indicated to her husband that she would not want to live in this condition.
If there has been any abuse of Terri, it has been by the lawyers who have forced her to continue her life for 15 years despite her wishes, and dispite no improvement in her condition even after treatment early in her diagnosis.
I understand the agony of losing a loved one and wanting to hold on. But holding on against her wishes is selfish.
Agreed.
And in this case I say the words "alleged abuses" because it appears that over 60% of the people in America agree with the courts and their numerous reviews and decisions in this case.
The number 60% is, I assume, approximately taken from a push-poll that no one should place any credence in, that shouldn't have even seen the light of day.
Even if it's accurate by accident, X% of America "agreeing with the courts" isn't really very relevant if that X% doesn't know what the hell they are talking about in the first place. More useful might be a composite poll with a series of questions such as (1) do you agree with the courts?, (2) Is Terri Schiavo on life support?, (3) Is Terri Schiavo brain-dead?, (4) Is Terri Schiavo a vegetable? etc. It might be very interesting to learn to what extent a Yes answer to (1) correlates with (wrong) Yes answers to (2), (3), (4), etc....
The courts are ignoring Terri Schiavo's right to life. If the majority agrees with that then the majority is wrong.
So it looks like the majority believe that all has been done, the medical reviews have been re-reviewed numerous times, the patient has not shown improvement, and she indicated to her husband that she would not want to live in this condition.
This is a bunch of jibberish. "all has been done"? Meaning what, all appeals? So what?
The "medical reviews" have been "re-reviewed"? Meaningless, if the original medical diagnosis was wrong (you know she's had no MRI or PET right?) and the "reviews" consisted of a judge saying "I see no reason to doubt the original diagnosis".
I'm not sure what whether she's shown improvement has to do with anything. She's a human being. Have you shown improvement? If not can we kill you?
The assertion that she expressed a wish not to live in "this condition" is based primarily on his say-so. And it's doubtful that she would have discussed "this condition" with him - or at least, we can't really conclude that - given the we don't know, exactly, what "this condition" is.
If there has been any abuse of Terri, it has been by the lawyers who have forced her to continue her life for 15 years despite her wishes,
Bullcrap. You don't know what her wishes are. And she is not being "forced" to live. The notion of being "forced" to live is Orwellian.
And besides, if she's as far gone as you apparently assume she is, then how can "forcing" her to live constitute "abuse"? She's a vegetable anyway, so who is there to feel "abused"?
and dispite no improvement in her condition even after treatment early in her diagnosis.
How much treatment? Treatment "early"? Why did the treatment cease, I wonder? Uncomfortable questions... sorry.
I understand the agony of losing a loved one and wanting to hold on. But holding on against her wishes is selfish.
That may be.
What are her wishes?
You have no idea. If she's a vegetable she has no "wishes". If she's not a vegetable we're killing a living human being who, for all we know, may want to live - and may even be inclined to take her parents' wishes into account.
But you're right. Let's just kill her. We must err on the side of death. Better safe than sorry. It's cruel to "force" her to live. It's humane to starve her to death. It's "selfish" to provide her sustenance. It's mature and selfless to put armed guards outside her door and forbid people from seeing or feeding her. War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.
Can you perceive my disgust yet or shall I continue?