Didn't mean to become so Schiavo-centric lately, but, y'know.
So, a woman was arrested today for trying to give Terri water. Um. Wasn't the point that Terri alledgedly didn't want to live a "artificial" life support? The feeding tube was removed (though I'm hard pressed to consider that "artificial" life support). But, why the ban on attempting to feed her?
Seems to me that the courts have gone from saying "Terri must not live on 'artificial life supporty'" to saying "Terri must not be allowed to live under any circumstances". Her ex-nurses say she can swallow jello and liquids, but she is banned from any attempt at ingesting any nurishment on her own. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. But, can we at least let her die trying?
Terri Schiavo has been sentenced to death because she is mentally impaired. No. Other. Reason.
Oh, the link, right... From Sharp Knife, Noel writes IF:
If she were a corporation, we'd indict the Chief Financial Officer--her HINO (husband-in-name-only).If she were a killer, she'd be protected under the supreme court's ban on executing the retarded.
If she were a terrorist, Teddy Kennedy would be making blistering speeches on the Senate floor condemning her torture-by-starvation.
Read 'em all.
The only thing that counts in this case is the law. Florida law specifically states that feeding/hydration tubes are life support. Life support has been ordered removed because her legal guardian, her husband, has proven to the courts that it was her wish to have it done. He's done everything required of him legally, even after the rules started being changed in order to prevent it. His motives don't matter, our morality doesn't matter, nothing matters in this case except the law, which has been administered to by numerous judges in numerous courts. If we don't like the decision, the choice is to change the law so that there won't be a next time.
It sucks, but there it is.
I'm a little tired of hearing about what a scumbag her husband is too. We hear the spin put out by her parents and their supporters, and forget that he's stayed married to her for 15 years. She certainly hasn't been a wife to him (through no fault of her own), so why doesn't he get a break for still being her husband? Girlfriend? Kids? Sorry, that happens all the time in today's society, and I've yet to see anyone else demonized to the degree he is for it.
I'm sick of all the opinions being floated by people who don't know all the facts, and then labasting a judge who *has* heard all the evidence and facts yet made a descision they don't agree with.
Posted by: Ted at March 24, 2005 12:27 PM