On 2005-03-26T20:05:14-0800, Eric Cordian wrote:
Justin writes:
If the judge's decision had been the opposite, there might be a bounty on his head for that, too.
Somehow letting someone who has lived 15 years with a significant brain injury live out the rest of their normal life span just doesn't provoke people the same way dehydrating and starving them does.
She is a corpse with a heartbeat. Artificially feeding her against her wishes and/or the wishes of her husband (whose wishes have precedence over the wishes of her parents -- if you don't like that, get that law changed) is sick. She has become a doll for her parents, who are too immature to grasp the concepts of "life," "death," and "dignity." Presumably they're still stuck on "God" and "selfishness."
If you're saying that fundie Christians are more pathologically violent than either the areligous or the more progressive religious, I'd agree there.
I don't believe in the existence of a supernatural, but I certainly wouldn't take water and food away from any human with a functioning brain stem, particularly when there are people to whom that person's life has meaning, and who are willing to provide them with care.
If I have a living will (in writing or by the decision of a legal proxy) that restricts certain kinds of treatment, you're more than happy to see doctors violate that and keep me alive as long as someone on Earth is willing to pay? (Even if Terry's parents weren't willing or able to pay originally -- I don't know, and haven't investigated that aspect of the case -- if they manage to keep her alive, they'll probably get enough donations to keep her alive for millenia.) That is not the way any sane legal or medical system should work. I suppose you don't believe in euthanasia either? It would seem to be inconsistent if you did. How can someone choose to die if anyone else can veto that choice?
The interesting political lesson here is that one stubborn judge, and his pals who band together to support him, can defy the will of the President of the United States, the Governor of the State of Florida, and a majority of both houses of Congress.
Thankfully, Neither Jeb nor George nor the U.S. Congress have any jurisdiction over this whatsoever. The courts do.
Of the three equal branches of government, the unelected branch is more equal than the other two. Of course, we've known that since Marbury vs Madison.
That is of course true, but not because of the decisions so far in this case. The law allows her spouse to decide what artificial means should be used to keep her alive. If you don't like it, again, lobby for a change to the law. The strong control the weak. The majority controls the minority. All we have here is a governmental system originally set up by the majority (maybe... at least no internal faction opposed it until 1860), where some people managed to get into positions of influence within the governmental machine despite having unpopular beliefs. I find it amusing that the Republican-dominated national Congress wants Terry kept alive, while Scalia has been quoted as saying, "Mere factual innocent is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached." Republicans in general can't get anything right because their belief system is less coherent than any other. At least the supreme court didn't reverse the decision... not yet, at least. That's only because some of the Republicans are not-so-conservative and they all know the decision would be affirmed. Taking the case would just waste time. -- Unable to correct the source of the indignity to the Negro, [the Phoenix, AZ public accomodations law prohibiting racial discrimination] redresses the situation by placing a separate indignity on the proprietor. ... The unwanted customer and the disliked proprietor are left glowering at one another across the lunch counter. --William H. Rehnquist, 1964-06-15