Okay, so we all know what happened in the whole Terry Schiavo case, but apparently some people are upset at the judges repeated decisions in Michael’s favor. Some have called Michael a Nazi. House majority leader Tom DeLay referred to the judiciary as ‘out of control’ and ‘unaccountable’.
I’m not gonna sit here and say with absolute certainty that what happened was the right thing to do. It is a moral gray area that one has to think about before arriving at a decision. Personally, I wouldn’t want to be kept alive like that, as it seems like a pretty shitty existence. But that doesn’t matter in this case. I don’t claim to think for everyone, and everyone looks at the situation differently.
But here’s why the judiciary repeatedly ruled in Michael’s favor, and why they are right to do so. Let’s say any given person gets into an accident with no hope of recovery. And no, you didn’t sign a ‘DNR’ or anything of the sort. Do we pull the plug automatically? Do we leave you plugged in? Well as we don’t know what said person’s desires are, as they cannot speak for themselves, we have to ask who would know best. So who knows them better than anyone else?
Their spouse. In Terry’s case, that would mean Michael. He claims that she would not want to be kept alive in a vegetative state. Why shouldn’t we believe him? The idea that he would want to murder her is completely spurious. He has absolutely nothing to gain. And to those who point out that he has children with another woman, yes this is true. Let’s say he has motivation to marry the mother of his children. In that case, he can divorce Terry, under rather understandable conditions, and marry her then. I fail to see how that is such a difficult hurdle to jump that he resorts to (as some see it) murder.
Furthermore, the judiciary reads the laws as they are written and makes decisions accordingly. According to the letter of the law, in Terry’s condition she becomes under the care of the husband. The husband can then decide what to do according to his wife’s wishes. Whether the lawgiver believes she should be kept alive or not, their hands are tied as they have to follow the law. And from what I can tell, the law seems to be fair on the matter. If Mr. Tom DeLay wants to alter the law or weaken the judiciary in order for it to bend more to his will, he will be met with rather firm resistance. Or so I hope.