Religion is hardly rational, yet allowances for it are made all the time. Why wasn't an allowance made here, especially if family's beliefs compel them to live in fear for Terri's soul based on the actions taken by the state? Why should any state have any right to put its citizenry (the survivors) in such pain? Wasn't gov't created to help protect its citizens against such persecution?
Why aren't a parent's ties to their child given at least equal weight to that of a spouse? A spouse should never own its partner and legal divorce can render such a relationship entirely void. There is no way, legal or otherwise to void the relationship between parent and child. Such ties are indelible. IMO, parental ties should supercede those of any spouse, yet the law (or at least precedent) states just the opposite. That law is wrong IMO, especially when tied to matters of life and death.
If the family is willing to pay for or personally conduct the care of someone, how can that be deprived by the state? I could see perhaps depriving taxpayer expense for it, though that seems steely cold, but if taxpayers give the nod, fine. But where does the state get off telling family members that they have no rights to maintain the life, however awful that life may be deemed, if they want to or feel the need to? The case of the six month old baby in Texas being taken from its mother, against her will, is too Big Brother for me to contemplate and I think the same is true in the Schiavo case.
I'm very glad that we aren't going the other extreme, of not allowing life to be taken, simply because it is life, but when its clear that the possessor of that life did not wish to live under certain conditions or had provided clear written evidence of those wishes. Testimony from others is not something I deem to be enough evidence. With no written evidence from the possessor of that life, we should err on the side of life. Certainly with a 6 month old baby who could never write their wishes.
--tully