Re: Schiavo debate taps into faith, fear Sunday Feb. 27, 2005
One 'fundamental premise' that appears to have been overlooked is the issue of her guardianship. Why is someone permitted to be her guardian that clearly does not have her best interests & welfare at heart? Why has the majority of the malpractice settlement won on her behalf been spent on trying to end her life, and little, if any, on attempting to rehabilitate it? Why is she in a Hospice facility for terminal patients and not in a nursing home? This whole "right to die" issue would be moot if only she could eat on her own.
If this were a minor child, people would be outraged over her neglect and lack of standard rehabilitation. Let her family love and care for her, as they have offered to do, at their own expense. Let's not accept hearsay evidence from a highly questionable source be the foundation of the Court's decree that this is her wish, to end her life in this manner. I find it ironic that very few of us could go hours without eating or drinking, and yet many are asking for her to go weeks without sustenance. What has this society come to? There is a vast difference between performing heroic care and providing humane care. Personally, I would be all too willing to have this return to a private issue and out of the public forum, but to accomplish this, the court needs to remove her current guardian and choose one who doesn't have a vested interest in her dying.