Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

----- Original Message -----
From: "jack syme" <drsyme@cablespeed.com>
To: "Bill Dozier" <wddozier@mac.com>
Cc: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>; "Glenn Morton" <glennmorton@entouch.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2005 5:27 AM
Subject: Re: cruzan v schiavo what a difference a decade makes

> Once again you need to get your facts straight.

.........................................
It seems to me that a couple of different issues are being conflated in a
lot of the discussion here. 1st there is the question of whether
withholding of nutrition &/or hydration for a person in a PVS is ever
appropriate. (With, of course, the subsidiary issue of defining PVS
clearly.)
2d is the question of who is qualified to make the decision that a person is
in that state. 3d is the question of who should have the authority to
withold nutrition &
hydration for a given person determined to be in that state - if, indeed,
it's been determined that such withholding is ever OK (#1).

Some would answer #1 that it's never appropriate. In that case the details
of the Schiavo case are irrelevant. That is a consistent position to take
but those who do so should say that clearly & not confuse the issue by
debating the husband's motives, &c.

Shalom
George
http://web.raex.com/~gmurphy/
Received on Sat Mar 19 07:17:02 2005