> Nader was eager -- who isn't? -- to talk about
the Schiavo case.
Maybe those who repect personal liberty? Maybe those who are not predisposed to being busybodies and fight for liberty instead of advocating interference (how you can die; whom you can marry; etc. etc).
> Of course Michael Schiavo does have such a conflict
of interest, in that he stands to inherit a $350,000
portion of the successful medical malpractice suits
launched in Terri Schiavo's name.
I guess my brother, my sister and I should have been prevented from informing our father's doctors yesterday of his treatment wishes yesterday since we stand to inherit upon his death and certainly that is a conflict of interest. Logic like that means that only a completre stranger should be able to make these decisions. Puhleeeze!
>There is no state interest in letting her die.
There is no state interest in being a busybody.
> If her biological family wants to take care of her, why
should Michael Schiavo retain the power to pull the feeding
tube from his spouse?
Because when a person marries, the right to make those decisions passes to the spouse.
> So it seems to me that the equity of the situation is to have
Michael withdraw as guardian and let Terri's parents be
guardians and take care of her.
There is no equity is turning Terri over to people who will impose their wishes upon her. She is not a football to be tossed around. She married Michael, and in doing so exercised her liberty and made him the decision-maker in her life. It is neither the state's nor the family's right/interest to undo the fruit of Terri's liberty by taking decision-making power away from Michael.
> When a spouse is in effect married to two women (after five
years the second woman is his common law wife), he should
withdraw and let her parents take care of
their child.
Notice the tone of righteousness adopted by the right wing. The spurious appeal to decency that is expected to trump the liberty interests of those involved.
> They should have let her parents have the right to have
standing to file in federal court and above all to have a *de novo*
review of the case.
Why should parents have this right? All parental rights over children should be automatically terminated at the age of 18 to ensure individual liberty. I do not understand this jones for a mommy/daddy state.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister