HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
Jan. 27, 2005 The Supreme Court let stand a lower court's decision to find as "unconstitutional" a Florida law that permitted the governor to prevent removal of a feeding tube, that's keeping Terri Schiavo alive. It seems that her husband wants her to die so he can both inherit her estate AND marry the woman he's been living with (and who's had his child) for some years now while his wife lies in a hospital bed, marginally responsive to her parents' love and kindnesses. She is NOT, understand, in a "persistent vegetative state" as he's claimed before. She is simply unable to feed herself or take in fluids. Neither can she talk or walk. Video evidence DOES suggest, however, that she's able to respond to stimulae and seems to recognize her mother and father. She's seen to smile when her mother hugs her or strokes her cheek. The husband has wanted her to die. Lots of people wondered just why that is until it came out that she has a substantial estate and he doesn't want to lose access to that money so he's refused to simply divorce her and walk away. He claims that his wife "wouldn't want to live that way," but there's no real evidence that his wife would want to end her own life other than HIS word for it and, of course, he has an ulterior motive for wanting that done. Since Ms Schiavo cannot speak for herself--and the courts have overruled her parent's wishes in favor of those of her husband--the Florida legislature passed a bill a bit over a hear ago giving Governor Jeb Bush the right to overrule the husband and prevent Ms Schiavo's demise at the hands of those who stand to benefit from her death. An appeals court ruled that the governor had no standing to do so and the US Supreme Court simply refused to review the case-- effectively letting stand the appeals court's decision to permit the removal of the feeding tube that's keeping Ms Schiavo alive over the objections of both the governor AND the parents. The utter horror of a death by slow starvation and dehydration aside, the Florida court SHOULD prevent that removal on the grounds that doing so is legalizing euthanasia--illegal in almost all States. When did we reach the point at which liberal interest groups or liberal judges have assumed the sole right to determine when any life is "worthwhile" or not and whether or not that life can be terminated without a CLEAR indication that the ill person would want it done? I don't know about any of you readers, but I certainly don't recall a referendum granting someone else the authority to decide when my life is "worthwhile" and when it isn't. All this would be different if Ms Schiavo was completely unconscious with minimal brain activity, but she obviously ISN'T in that state-- or really anything close to it. She responds to her mother. She can smile and she appears to recognize other people and she responds to stimulae. She is NOT in a "persistent vegetative state" with no hope of recovery. Her mother and father are with her frequently and are taking care to prevent bedsores or other lesions associated with nonmovement for long periods of time. I don't know about YOU, but I certainly don't want some left-wing interest group determining when or if I should die because they don't think I'm enjoying an appropriate "quality of life." The arrogance of these people is astounding, but typical of the way they've tried to govern us for decades so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. But, that's not the same thing as saying that we should give in to them. ------------ About the author: David A. Jared is a news junkie, semi-retired and an avid golfer who's been writing his first book, "4000 years of chopsticks" for the last 20 years. Email: Pappadave@sbcglobal.net ------------- All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com and are not allowed to be posted on other websites. ARTICLE THIEVES WILL BE PROSECUTED! |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
