Life

A: This post is not about our lives. It's about Terri's life. What do you all think about the Terri Schiavo case in Florida? (She is "comatose" and the court orderdered her feeding tube removed, which her husband wanted, and her parents didn't.) I have been following this case closely. My biggest problem with the whole thing is that the courts are allowing Terri's husband to maintain her guardianship in spite of the fact that he has a clear, strikingly obvious conflict of interest. How can he possibly be looking out for Terri's best interests when he has a new honey and wants the money. (No, I'm not trying to make a cute rhyme.) How can the courts possibly deny Terri FOOD and WATER when no efforts have been made to put her through therapy to help her condition and several doctors say it's hopeful she can improve? This case is so troubling to me. It's not about refusing to sustain her artifically (she's not on life support). It's about giving her food and water, for heaven's sake! Those are the basic necessities of all - next to oxygen! It's against the law to refuse food and hydration to a farm animal. Why are we subjecting Terri to cruel and unusual punishment by denying this to a human being?! She will die a painful death that is prohibited for animals. Who is next? Shall we determine that downs syndrome babies should be left in room to die of dehydration and hunger because their parents (guardians) don't think they are fit to live? How far shall we take this line of reasoning that human life should be denied when there is a handicap? When do we determine life is not worth living? WHO determines that?