March 19, 2005
RE-UPDATED: Bush II; Day 137: More on the Schiavo Case
Thanks to The Moderate Voice for providing a very thorough wrap-up of various viewpoints around the Internet.
UPDATED: This post would not be complete without including this scathing, scary post by the brilliant James Wolcott.
RE_UPDATED: Here are a couple more links, particularly relevant now that Congress has passed their precedent-setting legislation: Atrios and Matthew Yglesias.
I do confess I'm confused: when I think of past cases I've been aware of through friends/family where they decided to take someone off of life support, I did no think that in every case the person had a living will. I thought that at some point the family had to decide. So, is the problem here is that although the husband is Terry's next-of-kin and can make the decision, since there is no living will her parents can challenge it in the courts? That if the family cannot come to agreement, the courts are always an option?
I'm also unclear as to what people think Terry's husband is supposed to gain by this...other than honestly feel like he adhered to her wishes? He's already moved on to a new life. If he was concerned about a financial burden (He's not because she's considered indigent and her care is covered by the hospice) he could just turn her over to her parents. What is his motivation then? Just cold-blooded? That seems very hard to believe.
Finally, horse's mouths:
Michael Schiavo on Nightline (transcript).
Terri's father on Hardball (transcript.