The right to starve

CNN.com - Lawyer: State has no right to rule in Schiavo case - Oct. 22, 2003

Bo and Mary Schindler have been engaged in a long legal battle with son-in-law Michael Schiavo over the fate of the 39-year-old woman, who suffered severe brain damage following a heart attack in 1990. In the latest twist of events, Governer Jeb Bush rushed a bill through the Florida Legislature allowing the reinsertion of Schiavo's feeding tube rather than allow her to die.

A court ruled recently that her feeding tube could be removed it was on the basis of Terri Schiavo's own wishes not to be kept alive by artificial means. He said Terri Schiavo told her husband, "I never want to be kept alive artificially."

The spectre of Judicial tyranny still hovers over this case, says Dr Jim Dobson on Family Life Ministries Network in that the matter will continue to simmer perhaps until and perhaps after the last breath that Schiavo will ever breathe. Dobson, a strong pro-life Christian advocate and the large Christian Florida community are adamant that the woman who despite being brain damaged, yet is able to respond in a limited way; is allowed a chance to rehabilitate to some form of recovery.

The issue here is not so much the wishes of Terri (if indeed it is true) to die, but rather the fact that no one should be allowed to starve to death, especially in the case where there is no way to establish if this is indeed her wishes. The decision of the court was based solely on Schiavo's statement to her husband and would unlikely have taken into consideration such a scenario.

I wonder if the courts are truly equipped to play God? Even worse, to waive the consequence (relatively short-term though it would have been) of pain and suffering it would bring to the "victim" all for the sake of choice? If for example I were found out to be starving a pet at home, will the police, upon being made aware, be oblidged to stop me?