Observations Around Terri's Case

John Leo writes a great column that summarizes some of the lessons and obervations surrounding Terri Schindler-Schiavo's case.

Among the highlights:

I do not understand why liberal friends defined the issue almost solely in terms of government intruding into family matters. Liberals are famously willing to enter family affairs to defend individual rights, opposing parental-consent laws, for example. Why not here?

And regarding the MSM:

More important, it was hard to find news that Michael Schiavo had provided no therapy or rehabilitation for his wife since 1994, and even blocked the use of antibiotics when Terri developed a urinary infection.

And remember how the 'pull-the-tubers' thought that Terri's wishes were known? The MSM failed Terri in that regard:

[T]he big national newspapers claimed as a fact that Michael Schiavo's long-delayed recollection of Terri's wish to die, supported only by hearsay from Michael's brother and a sister-in-law, met the standard for "clear and convincing evidence" of consent. It did nothing of the sort, particularly with two of Terri's friends testifying the opposite.

I have said it before, I will say it again. Terri's case is a crossroads for this nation. What is 'quality of life' for a handicapped person? What is the definition of "personhood"? Yes, this puts the pro-abortionists on the spot. What is the definition of life?

See the clip from an exchange on Court TV between author Wesley Smith and bioethicist Bill Allen

Smight: Bill, do you think Terri is a person?
Allen: No, I do not. I think having awareness is an essential criterion for personhood.

That leaves a lot of questions about what other people fall into that category. Comatose people, babies (especially newborns), Alzheimer's patients just to name a few. Can we remove nutrition and hydration from these people at any time?

Terri's case is a crossroads for this country to reevaluate what exactly is life.