Is it really necessary to point out the obvious difference, that a baby has a reasonable hope for a human life, not simply to be imprisoned within a broken body.

It unavoidably reminds me of my brother and his wife.  Today is my brother’s birthday.  This morning his wife was scheduled to have a long-awaited c-section at 36 weeks pregnant.  The baby is probably dead already, with a deforming genetic defect “incompatible with life.” They’ve known about it for about two months now, but she is has been forced by law to continue the pregnancy, an unimaginable torture for all of us. 

I am amazed at the way people with supposedly good intentions, but wrapped in ignorance, paint life with their broad brush dipped in this same ignorance, and thereby increase the suffering of those whose lives do not fit well into their narrow view.

I highly doubt that Terry would have wanted to have lived in that prison of a body for so long, nor to die with the whole world watching.

You know, Pandu - I have been asking around, and I have yet to find one person that would willingly switch places with Terri Schiavo.

The designation of food and water as life support is an interesting one, since it effectively defines all infants as requiring life support, at least until they can manage a spoon or fork.

True, but you aren’t allowed to remove life support at a whim.

765.305 Procedure in absence of a living will.--

(1) In the absence of a living will, the decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures from a patient may be made by a health care surrogate designated by the patient pursuant to part II unless the designation limits the surrogate’s authority to consent to the withholding or withdrawal of life-prolonging procedures.

(2) Before exercising the incompetent patient’s right to forego treatment, the surrogate must be satisfied that:

(a) The patient does not have a reasonable medical probability of recovering capacity so that the right could be exercised by the patient.

(b) The patient has an end-stage condition, the patient is in a persistent vegetative state, or the patient’s physical condition is terminal.

Infancy isn’t an end-stage condition, it isn’t a vegitative state, and it isn’t a terminal physical condition.  In addition, the infant does have a reasonable medical probability of gaining capacity to exercise such decisions.

Thanks for posting that, Mark.  You did a nice job defining how an infant is different from someone who is PVS. 

I do, however, continue to disagree food and water can be accurately designated as life support.  I think that was a deliberate misnomer in an attempt to make this particular termination a bit more palatable to the public.

The “Vatican” called it “providing nourishment.” I thought “force-feeding” was a better description.

King,
Food and water is only considered a life-prolonging treatment when it is delivered artificially (i.e. pumped directly into the stomach).  Regular food and water is never life support, and that is explicitly stated in Florida law.

It was my impression that it was also forbidden to Terri Schiavo.  I do realize that there was tons of disinformation streaming out of the collective arses of both sides, so this could be incorrect.

I also understand that it was not known if she could swallow or not, but if it were verboten to even try and see…

(I’m really trying not to be thick-headed about this.  Our newfound ability to prolong life brings all sorts of ethical complications.  This particular case simply ended up being a huge statement for both sides - regardless of how much it merited the consideration.)

One of the things that struck me throughout this entire thing is how few of us are totally “pro-life,” in the sense that we all draw lines where it is acceptable to end biological life.  How many of the protestors outside Terri’s hospice support capital punishment or the Iraq War? How many anti-war protestors are pro-choice?

Most of us accept the notion that in specific contexts it is acceptable to end life (i.e. abortion, collatoral damage).  The fight in this country is over which specific situations constitute as the “acceptable” taking of life.  Unfortunately, these fundamental questions are dominated by partisian politicis and one of the tragedies of the Schiavo case is her tragedy has been transformed into public spectacle.

I guess I would agree with conservatives about the need for a “culture of life” but I would disagree with what that means.  I’m still examining exactly what that means for myself, but I do doubt that overturning Roe v. Wade would create this “culture,” if this phrase is to have meaning beyond mere political rhetoric.

The Schiavo case has raised important and uncomfortable ethical questions for myself as I’ve had to go back and re-examine in which situations I would support ending biological life.  And why? And is this ethical or moral? And so on....