Thursday, March 31, 2005

What is this?

I don't have much to say on the Terri Schiavo case. I know for certain that I would hate to be in the position of any member of the family, but I think I would also rather die than live as a vegetable (as an aside, it must be awful for the Pope to be in a position where his mind is still there, but physically he isn't at all).

The best summary of the whole case I have seen is deployed here. The argument that in Florida her husband was her legal guardian is key; she shouldn't have entered into the marriage agreement if she didn't think her husband would have acted in her best interests.

But away from all of this, the question I want answered is this - why is removing a feeding tube in this way not euthanasia? Why is it OK to stop feeding people, which will certainly kill them, but not OK to administer a safe, lethal and fast dose of something? If anything good is to come out of the case, hopefully it will allow us to review this obvious inconsistency. I don't know where the answer lies. But if a decision can be taken on behalf of a person who cannot express their will which kills them, it makes no sense that someone who to all intents and purposes is compus mentis is refused the opportunity to have an assisted suicide.