"This has nothing to do with the sanctity of life"

[BurtWorm]

The Rev. John Paris, professor of bioethics, says Terri Schiavo has the moral and legal right to die, and only the Christian right is keeping her alive.

http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/03/22/father_john/print.html

So what do you think this case is really about?

The power of the Christian right. This case has nothing to do with the legal issues involving a feeding tube. The feeding tube issue was definitively resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 in Cruzan vs. Director. The United States Supreme Court ruled that competent patients have the right to decline any and all unwanted treatment, and unconscious patients have the same right, depending upon the evidentiary standard established by the state. And Florida law says that Terri Schiavo has more than met the standard in this state. So there is no legal issue.

Are there any extenuating circumstances?

The law is clear, the medicine is clear, the ethics are clear. A presidential commission in 1983, appointed by Ronald Reagan, issued a very famous document called "Deciding to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment." It talked about the appropriate treatment for patients who are permanently unconscious. The commission said the only justification for continuing any treatment -- and they specifically talked about feeding tubes -- is either the slight hope that the patient might recover or the family's hope that the patient might recover. Terri Schiavo's legitimate family -- the guardian, the spouse -- has persuaded the court that she wouldn't want and therefore it shouldn't happen. Now you have the brother and sister, the mother and father, saying that's all wrong. But they had their day in court, they had their weeks in court, they had their years in court!

Isn't the underlying social issue here one that says the law doesn't have authority over this kind of life-or-death matter?

Let me give you a test that I've done 100 times to audiences. And I guarantee you can do the same thing. Go and find the first 12 people you meet and say to them, "If you were to suffer a cerebral aneurysm, and we were able to diagnose that with a PET-scan immediately, would you want to be put on a feeding tube, knowing that you can be sustained in this existence?" I have asked that question in medical audiences, legal audiences and audiences of judges. I'll bet I have put that question before several thousand people. How many people do you think have said they wanted to be maintained that way? Zero. Not one person. Now that tells you about where the moral sentiment of our community is.

[Canuckistanian]

1. Exactly.

Ask a thousand people if they want to be kept alive in that state and they'll all say no. Yet 30% of those same people say that Terri should be kept alive in that condition.
Makes no sense.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Excellent article ...

I love the concluding comment:

"I hadn't anticipated the power of the Christian right. They elected him . And now he dances."

[TahitiNut]

3. That's all that need be said or published. All the rest is VOMIT.

:shrug:

[Cleita]

4. Is the right to die a legal right?

When my husband went on dialysis, he was told that he also had a right to refuse treatment and have hospice care when the end was coming. It would seem to me that this would imply a legal right to die although since he chose dialysis instead, I never learned much more about it.

However, if patients have a right to refuse treatment for terminal diseases, then it seems that Terri would have the same right through her guardian.

[BurtWorm]

5. What I keep reading the deeper I get into this case is

that the right to refuse treatment--on behalf of your severely brain damaged spouse in Florida, anyway--is very well established. The Schiavo/Schindler feud only serves to establish it over and over and over...

[deadparrot]

6. Exactly.

It's a sick, wingnut game--appalling conduct on the part of the Congressmen and women who voted for this bill. Shame on all of them for intervening in a private family struggle that has been decided by state courts simply because they didn't like the outcome. Sick, sick politics--they should all be ashamed.

[checks-n-balances]

7. Wow - thanks for posting this.

This really lept out at me:

A presidential commission in 1983, appointed by Ronald Reagan, issued a very famous document called "Deciding to Forgo Life-Sustaining Treatment." It talked about the appropriate treatment for patients who are permanently unconscious. The commission said the only justification for continuing any treatment -- and they specifically talked about feeding tubes -- is either the slight hope that the patient might recover or the family's hope that the patient might recover.

I hope these facts get some widespread media coverage. What could the RW say then??

[BurtWorm]

8. kick