So President Bush has personally signed legislation that should help gettingthis comatose lady back on the feeding tube again. He broke off his holiday to do this and called a special congress meeting on a Sunday to discuss the bill. Speaking of separating the powers of legislation....my ass. It is disgusting that Bush has gotten involved personally in this case. Or actually, the way he frequently personally involves himself with the justice system when their verdicts do not fit with his religeous fundamentalism.
Terri Schiavo has the right to live. True. She also has a right to die. If she was not fed via a feeding tube, nature would have its way and she would have been dead years ago. So one can wonder what would be God's Will: Keeping this person alive via technology or letting her die the natural way? I am not making that choice, but this principal is applied completely randomly by religeous idiots.
Doctors who switch off breathing machines are accused of killing someone and playing God by deciding on the time of death. But those doctors who put people on ventilators to stop them dying are never told they are trying to stop God's Will.
Can someone explain the difference here? Why is one good and the other one bad? In my opinion, keeping people alive against the course of nature would be much more against God's Will than letting them die at that time that God (or nature) sees fit (i.e. before putting them on machines etc)