"a state court permitted the removal of the tube"--the correct framing of

the role of the court in this case--thus permitting Terri's wishes to be carried out. The Globe got it right!!

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/04/01/moral_debate_rekindles_as_schiavos_life_ends/

Moral debate rekindles as Schiavo's life ends
Death after food tube's removal sets off push in Congress

By Raja Mishra, Globe Staff | April 1, 2005

PINELLAS PARK, Fla. -- After nearly two weeks without food or water, Terri Schiavo, 41, died yesterday with her husband cradling her in a hospice bed, a tranquil end to the life of a severely brain-damaged woman whose plight prompted Americans to weigh the sanctity of life against the right to die.
That anguished moral debate could lead to broad changes in the rights of the dying and disabled.

Social conservatives said they would press Congress when it returns next week from recess to pass legislation limiting the rights of spouses or relatives to end care for an incapacitated person like Schiavo. Activists also plan to lobby the Senate to bar filibusters against judicial nominees, so that President Bush can win confirmation for conservatives inclined to order life support continued in such cases.

For more than a decade, Michael Schiavo had argued that his wife, who had been in a persistent vegetative state for 15 years, would have wanted to die. But her parents disagreed in a family feud that led to the most legal action of any such case in US history, ultimately drawing in all three branches of the federal government. The public saga ended when Terri Schiavo, clutching stuffed animals from her childhood, passed away at 9:05 a.m., 13 days after a state court permitted the removal of the tube that provided her with nutrition.......

"Social conservatives said they would press Congress when it returns next week from recess to pass legislation limiting the rights of spouses or relatives to end care for an incapacitated person like Schiavo."

Um, so who WOULD end care for an incapacitated person like Schiavo? They want to limit the rights of spouses or relatives. Who else is there? Just turn them over to the state, as long as the courts in that jurisdiction are being run by a fundie freaky right wing judge?

"SOME social conservatives" seeing as the vast majority of the public did not want government intervention in the matter in any way and wanted her husband to make the decisions?

TRUE social conservatives, actually, would NOT want the government interfering in such personal and private decisions.

They are labeled wrong. They are social.....fascists? Conservative doesn't fit.

Or if you prefer, Judeo-Christian Totalitarians.
Abrahamic Totalitarians-which would also encompass the Muslim variant.

Who else do the totalitarians want to make these end-of-life decisions? Apparently not spouses or families, or judges who will weigh all the medical and legal evidence, so they must want some Washington bureaucrat deciding these things for everyone. I wonder what criteria they'll use? Will the incapacitated person's family have any say in the matter at all?

when they are dissing gay marriage.

Repukes are the masters of selective application. They only use moral statements when it suits their purposes.

If removing a feeding tube is termed "starving" then removing a ventilator, as TD did to his own father, should be termed "suffocation".

Note: I respect any family's private decisions for end of life care but TD inserted himself into this controversy with a holier-than-thou attitude and deserves the heat.