Wednesday, March 23, 2005

My Schiavo post

I think it's truly sad what has happened to this poor woman and her family because of this case. As I said when discussing the Groningen protocols, when other people (especially judges) start to decide for us what criteria make a life worth living, we are truly dealing with a "slippery slope." Whether or not someone wants to live in the state that Miss Schiavo is in is not up for debate because everyone has a different personal preference. Which is one reason this case is didturbing, her husband based on an off the cuff comment she made some twenty years ago decided she no longer wants to be fed by a feeding tube. This is not life support, this is not a respirator, this does not qualify as heroic or extraordinary means of maintaining life. A feeding tube, therefore, is not covered on a DNR.

And since there is no written documentation by Miss Schiavo in the form of power of attorney or a living will, I would think that to err in this case would be to err on the side of caution. Since we don't know her preference and the important involved parties are conflicted keep the poor woman alive by feeding her. If you were to starve your pet dog you would be arrested for six days, why is it not the same for a person who is mentally disabled?

I think Dubya is right on in this case by saying we should err on the side of life.


UPDATE: For some excellent fisking of some lame editorials just good general up to the moment coverage check out Legal XXX. Keep up the good work Chris.

UPDATE 2: Got Design has some excellent commentary and he also sees the similarities between what Michael Schiavo and the Florida courts are doing to Terri and the Groningen protocols. Very scary stuff.