March 24, 2005
Update: John Kass decides to stop using euphymisms:
I'd rather consider a photograph of Terri and her parents, her mother stroking her face, and Terri's eyes looking up at her, almost smiling, perhaps involuntarily. Perhaps she feels nothing, but her parents feel it. They want to care for her and should be allowed to. But the law says no, the state has decreed, and hands are clean.
I wouldn't want to live that way. And I'm writing something down to inform my wife that if I am ever like that, they should let me die. But there was nothing in writing for Terri. And her parents want to care for her. Still, she's being killed.
So let's not cheapen this by avoiding what is happening to Terri Schiavo. Let's use a real word, the kind of word that repels the bureaucrat in each of us, not some insect's word, but an ugly word that stands on two feet, a word of consequence, a word with some real blood to it:
Thanks Spoons for the link.
Update: Soon to be the last in this series. SCOTUS, predictably, declined to hear the appeal. Only thing left is whatever will Governor Bush can muster.
I expect Terri to die either today or tomorrow. The life expectancy of this country will also begin to die with her, as we will have made, as a society, the following decisions:
1) the government has life and death power over us all
2) members of the judiciary are now the final arbiter of all things, not just those that relate to the law
Funny. My civics/social studies classes were years ago, but I could have sworn that the legislature, executive and judicial branches were supposed to be co-equal. I guess this is truly the case of one branch being more equal than the others.
Update: Seems like I'm not the only one that feels this way. Excerpt:
But here comes the "right to die" crowd trying to put Terri to death saying that no legislature or executive agency can do anything that might even stall the court for one minute because that would violate "separation of powers". The court has given the big "f*ck you" to all other government branches saying "we've made our decision, this woman dies and there is nothing you can do about it".
Well kids, it strikes me that the courts no longer recognize checks and balances as any restriction on what they can do, even in putting someone to death. Can we honestly say that this is a Republic? Where is the democracy of one man in a robe ordering someone to death and allowing no other branches of government, much less a jury of peers, have any say in the matter?
When and if Terri dies, the Republic is buried with her. We're in a juristocracy then.
Update: And of course no discussion would be complete with input from the spot-on Moxie. Excerpt:
So, if a feeding tube is considered "life support" and ordered removed and if what I've read is true -- Terri is capable of eating if someone feeds her -- why aren't her parents allowed to provide their daughter with sustenance?
To me this implies that the idea is not to remove "life support" but rather to outright murder her.
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger at March 24, 2005 08:13 PM (9bw9Z)
Posted by: Rachel Ann at March 25, 2005 02:53 PM (n7cpp)
Posted by: Rachel Ann at March 25, 2005 02:55 PM (n7cpp)
Posted by: physics geek at March 25, 2005 04:03 PM (Xvrs7)
91 queries taking 0.1972 seconds, 236 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.