[lbo-talk] Shiavo "Forbidden video"

tully tully at bellsouth.net
Thu Apr 7 18:25:04 PDT 2005


On Thursday 07 April 2005 05:43 pm, Jim wrote:
>It really doesn't matter...and it was none of our
>business anyways...

Nor was it state business. IMO, Michael Schiavo had no right to ask the court to decide about pulling the plug, and the court should have never accepted the case. Terri was no more "owned" by Michael than she was by her parents and I think the precedent for a spouse to always have guardian power is wrong. It depends on the circumstances. The state should only get involved when no one cares. Otherwise they should stay out of private affairs.

Maybe its a gender thing, but there is nothing my son could do, that would stop me from loving him. The same is not true for a spouse. The connection is simply not the same, and to have precedent always go to a spouse is wrong. I know the argument that we choose our spouses but we don't choose our parents, but in a case like Terri's, it was clear that the parents wanted to care for her. Any law that allows one family member to allow death when there are other family members willing to keep that person alive is wrong. Any court system that would grant such a thing is wrong.

Why should parents need to be rational or reasonable about it? Since when is love rational? If Terri's parents wished to take care of her, for whatever rational or irrational reason, they should have been allowed. After all, It's not like Terri would be in any position to care if she were truly pvs.

How can others' claims of what they heard Terri say ever be sufficient or even admissible evidence of Terri true wishes? Humans can make themselves believe the most outrageous things are true.

What about the story of the 6 month old baby that was taken away from its mother against her will? How could a baby write its wishes in a living will or express them to others? That baby, Terri, and so many others were killed by the state when there were people more than willing to care for them. In Terri's case and others, they were starved to death, *forbidden* to have food or drink by mouth, which could have saved her. How can we starve innocent people to death? We are more humane than that with our execution of criminals, who also have far more access to independent counsel, judges, appeals, and medical attention than Terri received.

I'm glad we aren't going the other extreme where life is maintained just because its life, when its clear that such a life was not the wish of the person. But when no such knowledge exists, we should err on the side of life, especially in a case when loved ones exist and want to take care of that person. The only time the state should ever get involved is in the case where there is no one who cares to preserve that life or when different people wish to conduct that care. Otherwise it should be a private matter. Michael Schiavo was very wrong not to turn Terri over to her parents.

--tully



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list