The questions were ethical as opposed to legal questions:
For instance:
Is it ethical for a husband who has another woman to be making judgements for the wife?
(Florida law says it's legal. Ethical is another question.)
Is it ethical to withhold food and water from a PVS patient?
(Florida law says it's legal, if it would have been what the person would have chosen beforehand.)
Is it ethical to terminate life without written directions?
(Florida law says it's legal, if there are ways via witnesses, etc. for the judge to determine the patient's POV before the accident.)
The upset people feel, I am guessing, is a combination that Terri's death was unethical based on their POV (a view which I share); confusion over the scope of the private legislation Congress passed; feelings heightened with stories designed to demonize those in favor of Michael Schiavo's motives and to cast doubts on the legality of the court, the legal roller-coaster of the last few weeks, and a misunderstanding (I hope instead of intentional misconstruing!) of how the checks and balances in our system actually work.
It reminds me, in a sad way, of how my son when he was younger would get into all sorts of weird denials in his head about homework projects due.
What Michael Schiavo sought for Terri was in his legal rights as husband of record. What was done to Terri was perfectly legal in the state of Florida.
Nothing anyone can say will remove that fact. It was legal, was reviewed multiple times.
The law had been on the books for six years, I believe.
It's important to realize what is going on is really a battle between ethical points of views rather than facts. Every time someone uses bad or twisted data in favor of their ethical POV, they weaken the cause for that POV. And that's a shame, because the discussion is important.
But it will be lost in a sea of mud if people don't really look at what they are saying and its truthfulness.
A good analysis.
The scope of the legislation Congress passed was clear, and explicit, and was ignored, not carried out Whittemores semantics notwithstanding.
That is both a Legal, and ethical question.
You need to start a thread with that POV.....very good.
The checks and balances system was thoroughly abrogated by the judges in this case.
A situation arose that played out badly in the courts.
Congress (an whether or not it was the right thing for them to do is a moot point) tried to do what it saw as the right thing, passing a bill requiring a fresh hearing in Federal Court.
The President agreeing, signed the bill into law
The Courts disagreeing, insisted on the womans IMMEDIATE death, rather than carry out the direct instruction of the other two branches.
What logical, legal reason could they have had for not following the law?