The Terry Schiavo story continues. I have mixed feelings about this because I struggle with whether or not this should be an issue decided at the federal level or if it should be left at the state level.
Don’t get me wrong. I cannot fathom how persons can choose to end a life. Terry Schiavo is not terminally ill. There’s a debate regarding her state of consciousness, but she is alive and well. For those who argue that she is suffering more by having her life sustained, how do you come to that reasoning? To me, starving to death is not exactly a humane walk in the park to end so-called suffering.
The folks over at Mod-Blog reference an interesting article that discusses a Texas hospital decision to end an infant’s life against the expressed wishes of the parents! Amazing. A hospital values the almighty dollar over life. Something is wrong if people other than family have more say over the well-being of your own child.
America, however, overwhelmingly feels that Terry Schiavo’s feeding tube should be removed. It’s amazing.
We’re starting to see the value of life pushed at from both sides - infants, elderly, the sick and injured. It reminds me of the movie Gattaca where the only persons valued in society were those who were genetically perfect. Are we moving in that direction, particularly since we are on the cusp of being able to screen newly conceived embryos for disease and sex characteristics?
Tags: [Terry Schiavo, Schiavo]