(no subject)
Oct. 29th, 2003 01:48 pmWell, here are some interesting details behind Mr. Schiavo's decision to remove food and water from his wife, which weren't included in O'Reilly Factor's coverage ot the other news shows I've watched lately.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith090503.asp
I got the link off of the Kaus Files section of slate.com. I think the above article shows a pretty darn good synopsis of what's been happening to Terri Schiavo. It's a trifle too heavily slanted towards the pro-life support side for completely fair journalism, but it does have the virtue of extra details.
I'm not entirely sure how I feelabout this case. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to be trapped like that. I wouldn't want my parents countermanding my husband's directions on what care I would have wanted if I were able to speak for myself. I find it legally appalling that the FL legislature wrote a law purely for this case enabling Gov. Bush to over-rule the courts' decision that her husband, not her parents, should be in charge. (I'm also appalled that this news source was part of the effort to badger Gov. Bush into passing that law. What about all those people around the world who aren't in vegetative states but will die of starvation and dehydration just the same because there's not enough food and clean water in their countries? Wouldn't that effort be better spent helping them? )
On the other hand, her husband's motives for wanting to hasten her death seem rather suspect. Her medical condition doesn't seem as dire as the television news have been painting it - if you rely on that article's information. Her parents are willing and able to pay for her future care. And if her husband simply wants to move on, I can't think of any reason why he can't divorce her and wed that girlfriend of his.
One thing I'm certain of is that I need to file a living will in the near future. None of this legal furor would be going on if Terri had done that. Talking to Dav about my wishes is all well and good, but doesn't have the binding power of a document firmly stating what I want and don't want.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-smith090503.asp
I got the link off of the Kaus Files section of slate.com. I think the above article shows a pretty darn good synopsis of what's been happening to Terri Schiavo. It's a trifle too heavily slanted towards the pro-life support side for completely fair journalism, but it does have the virtue of extra details.
I'm not entirely sure how I feelabout this case. On the one hand, I wouldn't want to be trapped like that. I wouldn't want my parents countermanding my husband's directions on what care I would have wanted if I were able to speak for myself. I find it legally appalling that the FL legislature wrote a law purely for this case enabling Gov. Bush to over-rule the courts' decision that her husband, not her parents, should be in charge. (I'm also appalled that this news source was part of the effort to badger Gov. Bush into passing that law. What about all those people around the world who aren't in vegetative states but will die of starvation and dehydration just the same because there's not enough food and clean water in their countries? Wouldn't that effort be better spent helping them? )
On the other hand, her husband's motives for wanting to hasten her death seem rather suspect. Her medical condition doesn't seem as dire as the television news have been painting it - if you rely on that article's information. Her parents are willing and able to pay for her future care. And if her husband simply wants to move on, I can't think of any reason why he can't divorce her and wed that girlfriend of his.
One thing I'm certain of is that I need to file a living will in the near future. None of this legal furor would be going on if Terri had done that. Talking to Dav about my wishes is all well and good, but doesn't have the binding power of a document firmly stating what I want and don't want.