Or, Let's Get A Few Things Straight
Let's get a few things straight.
There are doctors who make mistakes.
There are doctors who lie.
There are politicians that make mistakes.
There are politicians that lie.
There are husbands that care.
There are husbands that don't care.
There are, likewise, parents at both ends of the spectrum.
For every expert you bring out to support your position, they will bring out an expert to suppor their position.
For every reasonable argument you use to discredit their experts, they will use an equally reasonable argument to discredit your experts.
For every sensible interpretation you give to the facts as you know them, they will give an equally sensible but totally opposing interpretation to the facts as they know them.
The facts as you know them aren't all the facts. Some of them aren't even facts at all.
For every silly, childish, and totally irrelevant piece of namecalling, browbeating, or similar tomfoolery they use against you and your arguments, you have used similar against them. Thanks for wasting our time with that, by the way.
In summary, you need to acknowledge the possibility that YOU ARE COMPLETELY, TOTALLY, UTTERLY WRONG ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THE TERRY SCHIAVO CASE.
That said, here's my take on the principles involved:
Human life is always preferable over human death. The defense of the defenseless is a high and noble ideal, that we should always strive to live up to. General policies and specific acts that undermine this ideal should be rejected whenever possible.
Euthanasia is a difficult issue to reach any conclusions about, both as a matter of personal preference and public policy. But I do believe that when there is any doubt at all, we should always take great care to err on the side of life.
Okay, fine. So we shouldn't kill helpless people, or allow them to die, if we can at all help it. But what if someone insists on making the decision? I'm open to the idea that there are cases in which Euthanasia is a humane choice, that doesn't undermine human dignity and the culture of life, but uplifts and strengthens these things.
So who should make the decision?
Al things being equal, I favor the husband over the parents. After all, as my wife points out: that's what marriage is all about. Is he making a bad decision? Maybe. But as far as I'm concerned, it's his decision to make.
All things being equal, of course.
There's also the law to consider. We have judges for that. All things being equal, I favor the judgement of the courts over the judgement of the individual. That's what courts are for.
But the judges only interpret the law.
There's also the lawmakers. They're having their own debate, at their level, about this issue. We will probably spend a lot of time in the comments for this article, debating the priorities and motives of the various legislators. Right now, though, let's assume that they're all acting in good faith, to the best of their ability. I believe it is their duty to consider issues such as these, and to propose whatever laws they feel are most appropriate. After that, it's up to everybody else--judges, parents, husbands, you, me, everybody--to abide by those laws.
That said, a slow, starving death? That's not really a sign of someone who loves you and wants what's best for you.
Of course, since it'd be illegal to euthanize Terri properly, with a quick, painless injection, slow starvation is pretty much Michael's only method of honoring what he claims are his wife's wishes.
Still, Euthanasia is a craze that is sweeping the nation and the world. Would it really hurt things so much, to let her parents and other well-wishers care for her for a few more years, until the Euthanasia fad reaches Florida and Terri can finally die a peaceful, dignified death?