[Gondring]

Your reply indicates that you care more about focusing on the death of Mrs. Schiavo than I do. I care about her rights, and the rights of all of us.

I suppose one could say that Mrs. Schiavo died a natural death, since if not for intervention by artificial medical technology, she would have expired back in 1990. But that's irrelevant. The important point is whether she died a death she'd have preferred, given her condition.

And in that case, I think we might possibly have let her down...not allowing a more humane active passing, rather than having to resort to "natural" death by removal of hydration. That's a distortion of prinicples, implying that disAbled people are somehow kept alive "artificially" if they require assistance. Again, we must focus on the rights, not on the "natural/artificial" aspects.

[danamco]

And in that case, I think we might possibly have let her down...not allowing a more humane active passing, rather than having to resort to "natural" death by removal of hydration. That's a distortion of prinicples, implying that disAbled people are somehow kept alive "artificially" if they require assistance. Again, we must focus on the rights, not on the "natural/artificial" aspects.



If it was not for the real tragic of her murder, I would LOL of your post with it's kind of "liberal" leaning. However, since you are so eager to tell US that WE let her down, why don't go and read Mark Furhman's book? He worked specifically on the case for several months before her "death." I'm sure he knows far more about this case than you and I combined, because he was there. If you don't know who Mark Furhman is, check out the O.J. murder case!!!