Content provided in partnership with
During the controversy over Terri Schiavo, we argued that it was wrong deliberately to bring about the death of an innocent human being, whatever her condition
National Review, July 18, 2005
During the controversy over Terri Schiavo, we argued that it was wrong deliberately to bring about the death of an innocent human being, whatever her condition; that it is especially wrong when there is reason to doubt that she wants to be killed and when her family members are willing to provide care for her; that Mrs.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Schiavo's husband was too compromised to make the decision to end her life for her; that a law enabling the killing of people in a "persistent vegetative state" should not be stretched to cover people who might be "minimally conscious"; and that the Supreme Court should not have established the current lax standards for denying incapacitated people food and water. A few critics of Mrs. Schiavo's death by dehydration went further, and alleged that her husband had caused her condition by abusing her. An autopsy failed to validate those claims. The pro-dehydration side seized on this finding, and the finding that her brain damage was irreversible, to claim complete vindication for its position. But the autopsy didn't even touch the central arguments of pro-lifers. Evidently it is very tempting to pronounce that one has been conclusively proven to be right--and in our era, it is especially tempting to say that it's science that has proven it.
COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
