The moral obtuseness of some of Terry Schivaio's advocates is maddening.
Let's be clear: Terry Schiavio is being starved to death* not because we live in a cruel and immoral country but because Michael Schiavio managed to convince three judges, in three separate trials, that (a) his wife would not want doctors to take extraordinary measures to save her life and (b) she has absolutely no chance of recovering.
The court's opinion about Terry Schiavio's wishes came from the sworn testimony of five witnesses, including Terry Schiavio's own brother and sister; and their opinion about her long-term prognosis was bolstered by the expert opinion of several doctors.
So, the argument to restore Terri's feeding tube boils down to this: Maybe the judges came to the wrong conclusion, so let's be cautious and err on the side of life.
Fine. I can get behind that. Really.
In fact, as I have always argued, I think that same argument should apply to capital cases. I think we should say, "Let's abolish capital punishment. Maybe the judges in those cases also came to the wrong conclusion, so let's be cautious and err on the side of life."
Unfortunately, I expect the typical Terry Schivaio advocate is a bit more hard-hearted.
*Note: I agree with those who say it would be more humane to kill her quickly. A death stretched out over two weeks is barbaric.
