roger_ramjet said:
I'm wondering what many of you thought about the mess that accompanied the Schiavo case? I found that a very interesting and enlightening show of how things work in the US. Get enough people worked up about something and before too long, folks'll be calling for all sorts of craziness. The courts upheld the law, fortunately. One would think that governmental involvement in the issue was entirely taboo, but I suppose in the somewhat crazy, reactionary environment that exists here, that's hoping for a little much.
About ANWR - I'm not sure we can make any definite statements about the situation there. It's such a toss-up. I'm too much of a greenie at heart, sometimes. It's such a shame, to me, that we feel it's necessary to have to develop this wilderness for the sake of short-term gain - but having said that, if the short-term gain provided has no long-term consequences, it makes the decision that much easier to justify. We won't know until it happens, though, and that's what worries me. I certainly don't have a great deal of trust in oil companies' ability to manage what is a very fragile area.
Actually, the "government" includes the legislative and executive branches as well as the judiciary. I presume you were referring to just the legislative branch in referring to the "government" getting involved.
There is no doubt that the courts had the final say in the Schiavo case and that all the appeals showed that the proper legal process had taken place. What I find a bit inconsistent is the view of some that the original court decision should stand unchallanged. I find that the same folks who took that position in the Schiavo case are the very ones who never believe the original court case settles anything in - for instance - murder cases. In these cases, appeals go on for decades. In fact, the presumption seems to be that there is is "obviously" an error in any proceeding that results in a sentence of death for another human being.
Another instance just leaps to mind. The original acquittal of the policemen invovled in the Rodney King case. Certainly there was nothing wrong with the legal process, but there was certainly wholesale rejection of the verdict by the same people who now think that the Schiavo case was settled eternally in the original finding.
In the Schiavo case, I believe the original court decision, however legally precise, was not morally just. There was just no real evidence that Terri Schiavo had ever expressed the directive attributed to her by her "husband."
The status of a "husband" who had taken another (common law) wife and started a completely different family seems to lose some of its standing. I won't belabor the various items that make it appear that there is at least an "appearance" of conflict of interest in the "husbands" recollection of Terri's desires.
I find it morally repugnant that a person totally detached from a disabled person has the right to dictate the end of that invalid's life when there are devoted family members ready willing and able to continue her care. I do not find it morally repugnant for the legislature to step in and try to find a remedy for this moral tragedy. I would find it reprehensible for the legislature to intervene in a case where only property rights or some policy difference was at stake. But here it was the issue of life or death measured in hours.
Personally, I would not want to be kept alive in the situation that Terri was in - IF it were CERTAIN that was the true condition. I think that some consideration should have been given to the numerous individuals who declaared that condition was NOT correct. In a case like this, I feel that it is really the start of the "slippery slope" argument to just discount all opposing testimony and declare that the original decision MUST have been totally correct.
I can imagine some estranged wife coming into the intensive care room where her husband is on life support from an automobile accident and declaring that "he would not want this == pull the plug" and proceed to collect the life insurance. Who can argue with her?? Based on what?? What if the guy's parents were there saying "give him a chance - let's do some therapy - we will pay for it." I know this is a lousy example - I just made it up. But I am sure there are really sticky situations that might arise if we allow someone to just "remember" what a injured person's life directives were.
As for ANWR - I am not so certain this environment is all that "fragile" to begin with. On whose authority do you declare this a fragile environment?