Replies

The cult of death has gripped American courts. No court have the right to legally murder the infirm if some legal conditions are met. In Terri Schiavo, the courts glorified death.

In my opinion, the courts did not have the right to order the removal of fedding tube of Terri Schiavo. The parents of Terri Schiavo have pleaded with the courts to allow their daughter to live, but the courts connived with her husband to murder her.

The question of life is not an issue of just rights. This is the reason why President Bush has decided to side with the parents of Terri Schiavo against the court system of the United States.

President Bush's explanation why he believed that the parents of Terri Schiavo had the right to ask the courts to restore the life support of their daughter is found is this words:

"The essence of civilization is that the strong have a duty to protect the weak. In cases where there are serious doubts and questions, the presumption should be in the favor of life."

Were the question of life just a mere issue of rights, then Terri Schiavo's husband, being her legal guardian, had the right to terminate his wife's life would be answered in the affirmative. Being her guardian, he alone could determine whether his wife should continue living or not.

This is why it is said that the essence of civilization should be that the strong protect the weak. Terri Schiavo was severely incapacitated and her wishes could not be known in this case. Her husband wanted her to die obstentiably giving the excuse that it was the wishes of his wife to die already but the parents of his wife refuted this. The court sided with Terri's husband rather than her parents, who had an equal interest in seeing that their daughter live.

The bone of contention was Terri's desire to die which she expressed to her husband. The parents contested this. In view of the inability of the courts to absolutely ascertain the wishes of the deceased, then the presumption should be for life. As long as there is no strong and incontestable proof that the patient wished his death, the presumption is that the patient wished to continue on living and therefore the patient's life should be allowed to continue.

This court decision has ramifications on the terminally ill. It shows that the courts can have power of life and death to anybody who is terminally ill.

This court decision will inevitably backfire on the courts themselves. There are tens of thousands of terminally ill in the United States and the hospitals taking care of them would want to be relieved of the responsibility of taking care of those who are terminally ill but continue on living because of sophisticated life support systems attached to their bodies. If the court decision means that the courts alone could decide whether a patient should live or not, the courts will be swamped with petitions to allow the life support system attached to a severely ill person be removed. Imagine if there courts are swamped with such petitions from thousands of people who are taking care of the severely ill who are being kept alive only because of sophisticated life support systems?

The courts are one thing and the American people are another thing. Will the American people embrace the cult of death that the courts have imposed on them without their consent? Only the American people can decide on that. One thing, this cult of death embraced by the courts in the form of euthanasia, abortion, pornography, homosexual marriages etc. will soon come to an end by the relentless protest of morally minded American men and women.