Terri Schiavo

Charles Krauthammer has a thought-provoking article in the Washington Post today-

In this case, the loved ones disagree. The husband wants Terri to die; the parents do not. The Florida court gave the surrogacy to her husband, under the generally useful rule that your spouse is the most reliable diviner of your wishes: You pick your spouse and not your parents, and you have spent most of your recent years with your spouse and not your parents.

The problem is that although your spouse probably knows you best, there is no guarantee that he will not confuse his wishes with yours. Terri's spouse presents complications. He has a girlfriend, and has two kids with her. He clearly wants to marry again. And a living Terri stands in the way.

Aye; I’d definitely go with the parents on this one were I the judge. BUT, going with the spouce seems to be FL law...

 

For Congress and the president to then step in and try to override that by shifting the venue to a federal court was a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers. The federal judge who refused to reverse the Florida court was certainly true to the law. But the law, while scrupulous, has been merciless, and its conclusion very troubling morally. We ended up having to choose between a legal travesty on the one hand and human tragedy on the other.

 

Hrm. Here’s where I get conflicted. The constitutionalist side says “Damn right!” but the religious man who cares for life first and law second says “Hell no!” So I guess my concensus is “This new law is DEAD WRONG, but I’m pretty happy it passed.”

Although none of that matters since the law has seemingly changed nothing.

Well, at least for now. It looks like it MAY change things in the future, if the democrats ever get a majority in congress- they’ll be all too happy to run roughshod over state’s rights and will be able to cheerfully cite this law as precedent.

 

There is no good outcome to this case. Except perhaps if Florida and the other states were to amend their laws and resolve conflicts among loved ones differently -- by granting authority not necessarily to the spouse but to whatever first-degree relative (even if in the minority) chooses life and is committed to support it. Call it Terri's law. It would help prevent our having to choose in the future between travesty and tragedy.

 

Hmm... I do like that. State laws, and it gives preference to life. Granted, it could get thorny when we end up with a family in which the pro-life side aren’t able to afford to continue care- then what happens? Welfare state? Not good.

Meh. Well, the legislatures can work that one out on their own.