Did you notice the subtle "written directives... to keep themselves alive" ?

Have we really entered the era where we must explicitly declare that we *refuse* euthanasia, first acknowledging that we know we are a burden to society and still do so?

It is obvious to me that this will soon be the law of the land because there is a single victim with many beneficiaries... the insurance companies, the state, and, most of all, the family. And we all know that even the Bible says that one should die for the good of many!

I foresee the day where, in order to explicitly *refuse* euthanasia, we must put up a $5 million bond, payable to the state.

I also foresee the nihilists and atheists among us arguing that favoring euthanasia is the truest form of selflessness.

Randall:

Foresee? It's already here, my friend. Here is Steyn into the spiritual insights of Michael Schiavo's legal wunderkid on the "gifts" we can all give one another:

"Michael Schiavo’s lawyer, George Felos, is a leading light of the so-called ‘right-to-die’ movement, and his book, Litigation as Spiritual Practice, makes interesting reading. On page 240 Mr Felos writes, ‘‘The Jewish people, long ago in their collective consciousness, agreed to play the role of the lamb whose slaughter was necessary to shock humanity into a new moral consciousness. Their sacrifice saved humanity at the brink of extinction and propelled us into a new age... If our minds can conceive of an uplifting Holocaust, can it be so difficult to look another way at the slights and injuries and abuses we perceive were inflicted upon us?’’

So, let's all join hands in a circle and thank the Jews for the Holocaust. (BTW, because of this guy, I would now bet Michael Schiavo was 100% sincere and completely convinced he was doing the most loving and compassionate thing for Terri. And, of course, these decisions should rest exclusively with a "loving family".)

Sorry, that should read "...on the spiritual insights...into the gifts...

It would be interesting to know how many letters the NYT received pro and con and why they chose to print this letter which is smarmy even by the standards of the newspaper of record.

The Schiavo/Schindler feud is the issue here, not the right to live or die. We need to know why Schiavo refused to divorce Terri, marry his new woman and move on.

He could have had her feeding tube removed any time over the past 15 years. Why now?

I hope there is an investigative reporter on the job writing the truth about this tragedy.

Actually, ERP, he only started trying to kill her AFTER the insurance settlement check was cashed. Remarkable how so much money helped his memory, no?

And, of course, these decisions should rest exclusively with a "loving family".

Surely not, Peter! Who better to make these decisions than a cohort of busybody strangers and a nanny state?

Two questions for the panel:

1. In the case that my conscious mind were totally dead, and only my body were surviving, what favor are you doing me by keeping my body alive?

2. In the case that my conscious mind were somewhat alive, but umable to process any sensory input or control any voluntary bodily movements, what favor are you doing me by keeping my body alive? People who are deprived or sensory stimulus for more than 3 hours begin to exhibit symptoms of psychological disorders. Sensory deprivation is often employed by military interrogators and is considered a form of torture. The anti-tube pulling side makes the case that Terri Schiavo was healthy and not in any pain. That is a very wishful projection on their part. For all we know she has been suffering excruciating mental anguish.

Neither Terri nor her family were allowed to make any of these decisions. Only 7 years after the 27 year old woman's mysterious heart attack did her abusive, adulterous husband make the unsubstantiated claim that during a casual conversation, 22 year old Terri implied she would not want to be kept on life support. Terri was neither on life support nor in a persistent vegetative state. Her husband denied any form of rehabilitation even though he sued and won a large settlement for the precise purpose of providing Terri with rehabilitation.

Two questions for the panel:

1. Why would Michael Schiavo sue if Terri wanted to simply die?

2. Why did a court award Michael Schiavo a million dollars to rehabilitate a woman who was supposedly brain dead?

Robert:

Well, here I was in my country-boy naivite thinking this was all about wishes, but now it seems it is about doing favors for people. And never mind fifteen years, you're down to three hours!

"what favor are you doing me by keeping my body alive?". As you well know, that is an impossible question to answer generally or often even specifically. The problem isn't that we can't answer, it's that you would even pose it like that. Is "keeping my body alive" your new euphemism for "not killing me"?

While we're identifying euphenisms, now we can say that a brain dead person is "healthy"?

According to you, Neuhaus is opposed to denying nourishment under any circumstances. If you are right, he is basically saying no one should be starved and dehydrated to death. That's a far cry from withdrawing artificial measures to prolong life, which he doesn't disagree with. But you still characterize him as an absolutist who "basically rejected the very notion of living wills."

Peter, here is a transcript of the Neuhaus interview. Here is the money quote:

And I would hope that people would come to ponder the principle that is ought to be controlling in this discussion, and that it is always wrong to deliberately take an innocent human life. And can this kind of public discussion focus in that way? I mean there's so many people who simply want to change the subject and get into questions of living wills and high tech medical procedures and legal niceties. No. We have to ask, "Who is my neighbor?"

It doesn't sound to me that he is for withdrawing artificial measures to prolong life. And isn't that a euphemism for taking a life? Let's be honest. Removing artificial measures to prolong life is killing. When you pull the plug on a person, you are killing them.

Well, Robert, at some point words either mean the same thing or they don't. How you draw that conclusion from the transcript is completely beyond me.

But, if I understand your position, you feel that we should have the right to terminate lives we feel, on the best scientific evidence, are "not worth living." Indeed, we are doing them a favour if we do. The fact that such favours are also completely consistent with our own convenience and comfort is irrelevant, I presume. It's cutting edge science and objective truth, after all.

(PS Don't forget to tell your kids to be very careful about what they say, even casually, on this subject to a serious boyfriend or girlfriend. It might come back to haunt them some day.)

But, if I understand your position, you feel that we should have the right to terminate lives we feel, on the best scientific evidence, are "not worth living."

Peter, if you feel that your life is worhwhile even without a cerebral cortex, I would never ask the state to deny you of that life. I, for one, see no purpose in continuing my life under those circumstances. I feel gratified that you would continue to see me as worthy of respect, but if you saw to it that noone removed my feeding tube, you wouldn't be doing it for my sake.

It isn't a matter of a lack of respect that we let go of a person whose mind has died. The tragedy of Terry Schiavo's life happened 15 years ago. The tragedy from that day until last week has been that of her family. We have become so paranoid of the slippery slope, so mistrustful of the motives of ordinary people that we're willing to go to the ridiculous extreme (yes, it is an extreme) of keeping bodies without minds alive indefinitely without even the hope of recovery, for fear that we will go down the road to the Holocaust.