But that still does not protect a person that the court has decreed "wants to die." Yes, it may make the hurdle touger to cross (it is now easily crossed, see Schiavo case), and I agree there is room for improvement. I will watch things unfold. I never did have faith in the system, but this case still rattles me to my core.
Good point. Any change would have to better define what is needed for the courts to divine the individual's wishes. Certainly more than "my wife once told me".
I never did have faith in the system,
I know, it is a quantum leap. But, I continue to hope that citizens will wake up and remember that "the system" is ultimately our own creation.
We are finally getting down to the nub of the matter.
"Wanting to die" is meaningless. You cannot make a contract to be murdered, and Jack Kervorkian is still in prison.
Society has agreed to tolerate the killing of severely disabled persons, though, as long as they qualify as being in a "persistent vegetative state". The problem with this morally, though, is that "PVS" was invented to define a group of people who could be killed. Its application to this case is an example of begging the question.
Whether or not Terri Schiavo meets the criteria for "PVS" is irrelevant. The difference between "PVS" and "almost-PVS" in her case is undefinable, and if she were examined by 100 neurologists or ten thousand neurologists, the result would remain that there would not be unanimity as to her classification.
The question is, is the practice of killing severely disabled people with severe brain damage to be tolerated. It's not a medical or scientific question.