Mr Thomas's argument is simply a logical fallacy. The whole point of the husband's argument was that it was Terri Schiavo's wish to die rather than to remain in such a state, and that his advocacy for her death was an act of love. Whether this was true or not is not clear, but Mr Thomas offers no new evidence either way. To claim that Terri's parents clearly loved her more because they wanted to keep her alive as if it was some sort of logical equation is simply to have misunderstood the case.

1. It was not just the word of her husband, and it was claimed that she HAD communicated her wishes.

2. It would be inhumane to deprive a woman of the ability to make a choice over her own body, so the option of having an abortion is in that respect, humane. Whether the actual act is also humane then becomes a question for the mother, but IMO the question is still flawed since the object doesn't exist. It is similarly inhumane to deprive someone of the choice to end their life.

3. Dehydration, not starvation. Justified because it was the only legal method of fulfilling her wishes.

4. Michael Schiavo deserves a husband of the year award. He has put up with slander and death threats, simply to carry our his wife's wishes.

5. The case was not about anyone's rights except Terri's.

6. The court's judgements were plain and simple - they followed the law.

7. A 3000 year old decision from a different legal system, about a different situation, that presumably never happened, is not precedent. (I wish I could dismiss the possiblity that this was meant literally.)

8. The legal issue was whether Terri would have wanted to refuse treatment. The political issue is... well I suppose it is either:

Should an unconscious patient's wishes that are not in writing be considered when deciding what that person's wishes were?
-or-
Should people be able to refuse treatments that will keep them alive?

9. The person "Terri" was dead. It was not unreasonable to request that her shell be left to die, so that all may properly mourn. That her parents wanted to keep her body alive and by their own admission would've gone to extreme and unpalatable lengths to do so, shows the depth of their denial -- not their love.

10. This: "the legal "husband" in this case did not have any emotional attachment to his "wife" lying in a vegetative state for 15 years." is absurd.

You can't choose your parents, why should they have a continuing veto over your wishes?

Chris b & deuc have pointed out the error of G Thomas' presumption to the wisdom of Solomon.

I would like to conduct a bit of a straw poll.

Who among the posters to this web site, would like to be maintained in a vegetative state for an indefinite period of time (15 years or more)? Remember, you can't speak, feed yourself, move, watch TV, read a book, talk, eliminate wastes or bathe yourself.

I know I would rather be allowed to die.

I agree with Xena but I while I am repulsed by the opportunistic Christian fundamentalists who swarmed onto this issue (including right-to-lifer George Bush who loves capital punishment even when the defendant may be innocent - figure that one out), I did find it a difficult issue to come to terms with.

Dale Carpenter at Indegayforum (www.indegayforum.org) wrote an interesting piece asking what if Terry Shiavo was gay. Would George Bush and supporters feel as strongly towards her? Carpenter concludes that some of the more principled stalwarts of the "Right to Life" movement maybe but nonetheless she would not have attracted the same degree of popularity.

I sometimes wonder what it would be like to be so sure that I had the one correct answer to problems like this. Or indeed any answer at all. It seemed to me just a crying shame for all concerned, and I was secretly pleased that I was not one of those who was forced, by their position in the medical and/or legal hierarchy, to utter a definitive statement on it.

What is equally frustrating is the apparent need that some folk have to take situations like this, which are both extremely rare and unique, and draw generalizations from them, often on totally unrelated topics. The phrase "hard cases make bad law" was never truer than in circumstances such as these, and it ill behoves us to dismiss this concept in favour of pushing our own barrow, whether on abortion, marital fidelity, parental rights or the relevance of Old Testament texts.

Xena,

I read something interesting recently, an opinion piece at The Age: here's the link.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Why-Eastwoods-Baby-got-it-wrong/2005/04/07/1112815666092.html

The author is 25, has C1-C2 complete quadriplegia, and has lived with it for 19 years.

In one part, it reads: "The road to recovery is a long one after such a debilitating disability. There are many, many aspects of a disability that a person needs to grow accustomed to if they are to live happily again. Firstly, there is the disability and secondly there is the life-sustaining assistance that is associated with a serious disability. For me, it took years to become used to my disability - of having to breathe via a ventilator, of being pushed around in a wheelchair and to rely on other people to survive.

However, once I had, it felt great to know that I had overcame such a severe disability and was still able to live a quality-filled life. I still do live a quality life and go on loving it."

Quality of life is a highly subjective assessment. You may not currently wish to live in such a condition, as you probably enjoy your full physical capabilities. However, that opinion may well change if your circumstances changed.

The debate over whether Terri Schiavo was technically PVS, was never adequately resolved.

As far as I'm aware, one neurologist (Hammesfahr) who assessed Terri Schiavo during an assessment noted: "The patient is not in coma. She is alert and responsive to her environment... She tries to please others by doing activities for which she gets verbal praise. She responds negatively to poor tone of voice. She responds to music... She differentiates specific people's voices from others. She differentiates music from stray sound. She attempts to verbalize. She has voluntary control over multiple extremities. She can swallow. She is partially blind. She is probably aphasic and has a degree of receptive aphasia. She can feel pain.... records from Hospice show frequent medication administered for pain by staff."

We will never know whether Terri Schiavo felt that, despite her severe disabilities, she had quality of life enough to continue living.

Pericles, I am with you on this one. The King Solomon bow in the artile was a long one to draw. That is more about a wife being "faithful: than the issue that Terri had at hand. We can all speculate about what constitutes "must die" but the saddest thing is that under the legal laws of that particular country, she had a horrible death, starving/dehydration, as compared to what that so called civilised country do to their convicted criminals. Pretty rank in every sense of the word. Who on earth would dare to trade places with her and/or her husband if placed in those shoes. Regardless of vegetative states, I can understand what her parents were going through, but more denial than acceptance.

I find it a very tenuous proposition to say that the parents "loved" Terri more because they wanted to keep her alive and suffering (assuming she could feel anything, which they apparently believed) while her husband wanted to release her from this shell of an existence. I know I would want to be let go in the same circumstances. I know my wife loves me enough to let me die rather than prolong a pointless existence.

Agree with Xena,

No way I would want to live like that. For me the key point is that Terri was being kept alive artificially. I agree with saving life if possible, but to keep someone alive in an artificial manner for 15 years is just sick. I can understand right-to-life in relation to arbortions, because you are unnaturally terminating something that is alive. In this case you are unnaturally keeping something alive that should be dead.

I fully support the husband with his brave stance, and think the interferance of US politicians for pure political benefit was an absolute disgrace.

Quite what relevance the article's author had in quoting the King Solomon story I am not sure.

R.

George Thomas is joining two debates to make one – abortion and the Schiavo case.

King Solomon was presented with two mothers - both seeming to appear “equal" and "indistinguishable" as worthy claimants.

The defect with the Schiavo case –

The Schiavo case looks at one husband versus two parents – clearly two “unequal claimants“.
Thus the “Solomon dilemma” does not apply and his "wisdom" misapplied and, in this case, abused for the benefit of emotionalism.

In “Schiavo”, we have a lady who as well as being an adult, voluntarily left her parents home to set up her own with her husband. That decision, supported by the unique relationship enshrined in marriage, determines the authority of the husband over the parent (otherwise we are forever to be subordinate to our parents wishes – ignoring age of majority and our own ascendancy to adulthood) - neither a sensible, sustainable or feasible philosophy.

The defect with the “Abortion” claim –

In the debate George Thomas pitches the embryo against the woman (supposedly again as two potentially equal claimants who faced Solomon).

Clearly, when a woman can function entirely independent of an embryo but an embryo cannot function independent of the woman, the claimants are not “equals”.
A woman’s ability to exercise her independent will takes priority over the wholly and profoundly dependent existence of the embryo.

Every persons sovereignty needs to be respected and defended against the third parties who would choose the interfere and force their demands, regarding the deployment of our own bodies, on us against our own will.

So George, do not try to hijack “the Wisdom of Solomon” and corruptly pressgang it into your cause without applying it correctly and please desist from trying to blatantly massage the clearly "inequal" to present them as "equal" claimants.

Your efforts merely bastardise what was the true "Wisdom of Solomon"

Bravo Col Rouge!

well said col.

The Solomon connection is nonsense. What possible comparison can there be between a baby with its whole life ahead of it and a woman with (as far as we can tell) nothing to look forward to?

Michael Schiavo did the right thing, respecting his wife's wishes, despite being put through 15 years of suffering by her (apparently) perverse parents.

Let it hereby be known to all that I do not wish to end my life as an artificially-sustained ex-human.

My position was that the parents and siblings should have made the decision on Terri Schiavo's life, especially in a situation where the legal husband had a common-law wife and children during Sschiavo's vegetative state. Its a question of who should make the decision on life and death, not what is the right decision. There was no right or wrong decision here.

If Terri Schiavo could have made a decision, would she not have divorced him under these circumstances? Which person would maintain a marriage where the other spouse has been living with another woman for 15 years and raised a family by her. His behavior was not fair to Terri Schiavo and more so to his common-law wife and children of more than a decade. The wishes of the parents should have prevailed although their judgements may be more emotional than rational. George C. Thomas

Didi – maybe you can produce some reason for overthrowing both the “contact” and “sanctity” of marriage – because that is what you are suggesting, to go along with your proposal.

You cannot transfer “authority” to siblings or parents and ignore the fact that Terri Schiavo was married to her husband. You cannot ignore the fact that she entered that marriage voluntarily and could have exited it likewise – but did not.

Your "precident" of parental authority overruling a spousal rights could technically authorise the parent of a party to marriage to decide how many grandchildren they will have. Suggesting siblings should decide is to suggest those siblings should decide where nephews and nieces will live, regardless of the wishes of the actual parents.

Your proposal is both fluffy and dangerous – it is fluffy because it is based on "subjective emotion" instead of "objective thought" and dangerous for the same reason.