Humane Starvation?

The recent issues surrounding the Terri Schiavo case have hit me square in the gut and have completely knocked the wind out of me. I am not one of those who is always against removing life support from a suffering individual, but I am also not one of those who hail Michael Schaivo's actions as heroic acts in defense of civil rights.

What gets me the most about this issue is the fact that Schiavo, who endured undeniable brain injury, was not in a coma, but lived in a seeming state of at least minimal consciousness. In conjunction with this, no one had any undeniable proof that Terri was, as her husband said, against being kept alive by artificial means.

The reason why Terri was denied any and all forms of nourishment escapes me completely. I guess I could better understand the idea that Terri would have to try to live by eating and drinking on her own, but I do not understand how anyone could deny her nourishment in any form. That's like taking someone off of a ventilator and, seeing them begin to breathe on their own, smother them with a pillow. That is insane. At the very least, Terri should have had the opportunity to eat under her own power.

Instead, this woman was sentenced to death based on one man's claim that she would not have wanted to live like she was living. Why her husband didn't simply relinquish his rights to Terri's parents is also beyond me. They were willing to spend the time and money to care for her, and he wasn't. He wanted her dead and he spared no expense to make sure it was done.

Makes you wonder if Mr. Schiavo wanted her dead for fear that she may recover well enough to spill the beans about any possible assault or attempted murder on his part. Why else would someone go through all this trouble to see that another person is eliminated? If this theory holds any water whatsoever, then my wife was accurate when she said that, "this was the perfect murder."

We wouldn't even do this to sick dogs.