Our Next Topic for Discussion

National Security seems to have attracted no takers as a topic of discussion so I'll try something else. Everyone, no doubt, has heard of the case of Terri Shiavo, the Florida woman who had a heart attack in 1990 and has since been declared to be in a persistent vegitative state. The woman's husband says that his wife did not want to have her life maintained under such conditions; her family, on the other hand, disputes the husbands claim. In fact, the family goes further, claiming, as this most recent article reports, that Terri "is able to communicate and could improve with therapy". Today there was more legal wrangling. Terri's husband won a decision from the Florida State appeals court permitting feeding tubes to be removed. Just hours later, the family rejoiced at the announcement of a 24 hour stay by the Pinellas County Circuit Court.

Personally, in the absence of a "Living Will" or a "Do Not Revive" request on the part of the patient, signed freely and in his or her right mind, the state should err on the side of life rather than death. Furthermore, we're not talking about removing equipment that is artificially maintaining Terri's life; we're talking about removing food and causing her to starve to death. To my mind, this is barbaric and indefensible. I leave it to someone else to defend it.

Together, we are smarter than any one of us alone so what do you think?

As always, there are ground rules for our discussions, which are:

1. I'm looking for reasoned debate, not ad hominem attack.
2. Foul language will be edited or even form grounds for rejection.
3. Articles will be expected to remain on the given topic.
4. Articles should be no longer than 1,000 to 1,500 words
5. Please frame views that do not agree with yours in positive terms
that proponents of said view use with respect to their views.

Other than that, any position on the topic is acceptable. Please submit your contributions to me at revcraigh@yahoo.com.