Weighing in on Terri Schiavo
I’ve been away from the blog for a bit and just read the numerous posts about the Terri Schiavo case and I wanted to weigh in. Paul wrote, “All this comes back to whether we have a Right to Die or a Right to Live. Depending on which one a culture decides to emphasize will make all the difference in the world.” It is interesting to me, that criminals actually are protected in the Bill of Rights (Article V), whereas Terri Schiavo is not. An interesting article about how Peter Singer reacted; when faced with this decision about his mother, he chose to keep her alive and let “nature” take its course. How much longer must we listen to his banter, when he, himself does not believe it?
Pip said,
March 25, 2005 @ 12:11 am
Several good remarks in today’s Wall Street Journal editorial. Among them:
“A criminal on death row can exercise a writ of habeas corpus by which he asks the federal judiciary to review his case. Why not Terri?”
“But the biggest failing of our legal system is that it could not accommodate the most humane outcome–to return Terri to the care of her parents and siblings, who are willing to provide for her. Judge Greer’s ruling that Terri’s husband is the sole guardian made such compromise impossible. But how can it be morally responsible to let a woman die when there are family members pleading to take on the burden of caring for her?”
“On this Good Friday, in the holiest week of the Christian calendar, Americans of various religious beliefs are keeping vigil for a woman many of them had never heard of until one week ago. If Terri Schiavo’s ordeal, and that of her husband and parents, can help our society reach a better understanding of how to deal with these difficult issues, that will be a worthwhile legacy.”
Paul S. said,
March 25, 2005 @ 11:25 am
I just finished reading that article on Singer. Excellent piece. I must say that I am impressed with the Godspy site. Our Catholic friends often produce the most profound social commentary.
Heather said,
March 25, 2005 @ 2:40 pm
Though the Surpeme Court has declined to hear the case, there is still a call for Gov. Jeb Bush to take custody of Terri – my mom and I were discussing the situation the other day and we could not help but to wonder what the total/national legal outcome would be if such a thing happened. If we, as a family, chose not to take extreme measures should something happen to my brother, who cannot leave a living will or even tell us his last wishes, could someone, somewhere, decide we were being cruel and take custody of him from us?
I am particularly concerned – when my parents pass away, God forbid it should happen soon, I am left in sole custody of my brother. Is my decision going to be nullified? I don’t mean to sound as if we would let him die were there means to keep him alive – and I certainly see differences between Jeremy and Terri in terms of mental functions, etc., as well as the fact that we intend to care for him until God chooses his end – but the legal factors here become weighty; though I am sad that the Supreme Court did not hear the case for the sake of Terri’s life, that there is such a bias against Life in our culture, I still get concerned with these types of cases because they tend to end up causing us, as a family, more headaches than helping our situation; it only makes our ability to decide what is best for Jeremy more and more limited.
Does anyone know whether these actions are specified specifically to this case, or have they been more general?
Paul S. said,
March 25, 2005 @ 3:26 pm
Heather,
On my own site I posted links to a few articles that discuss the legal ramifications of all of this. They may or may not directly answer your question.
There are three links within this post that may be helpful:
http://www.forgottenblue.com/index.php/30/thoughtful-posts-on-the-schiavo-case
Another site to checkout which has followed the case from the very beginning from a strictly legal perspective is http://www.abstractappeal.com