Paving the Way for Euthanasia - (Terri Schiavo case; "too damaged to stay alive:" O'Reilly)
Much has been said or written about the Terri Schiavo case, but the bottom line is that there was no moral justification for killing her because she had an inherent right to life and there was no clear evidence that she wanted food and water withdrawn. The morally correct course of action would have been to let her family take care of her. Nobody would have been harmed by that. Indeed, as radio host Julian Tepper points out, even if she had wanted to exercise a right to die, the autopsy results showed that she was not in a position to really know what was happening to her. So, therefore, what harm would have been done by letting her family take care of her until she died a natural death?
The clear facts of the case show there was something else at work here. And it is an issue that Bill O'Reilly on the FOX News Channel sometimes raised. As O'Reilly put it, "The medical evidence is just too overwhelming to justify keeping her on life support at taxpayer expense."
So that is what it comes down to. If the ultimate rationale for the Schiavo killing is that it would have cost too much to keep her alive, then we are all at risk.
O' Reilly would be glad to mention the St. Pete Times again on air if he knew that they have a huge agenda re: protecting JUDGE GREER, ET AL. They're still doing it. The Times lost 11,000 readers. Wonder why? Maybe it's because O' Reilly's right about them.