Thursday, March 31, 2005

One More: I don't think that the people who are arguing for her death understand how much their repeated admonitions that this woman really, really needs to go creep the rest of us out.

The fact is, the question of whether her life is worth living is an opinion. Even among us healthy people, some of us would want to be let go, and some of us would want to be kept alive.

Do you really think arguing that someone who is "unaware" of their surroundings for whatever reason should die is going to get you anywhere with the other side?

The crux of the argument for letting her go hinges on one thing--that this is what she really would have wanted. No matter what you personally would prefer, what you think is the better choice, this entirely comes down to doing right by her.

Even when you narrow it down to just that thing, it's still a tough case. You have the word and desires of one man vs. the word and desires of the rest of her family--however, that one man is her husband, the one who probably deserves the most say.

But saying that life--any life--can and should be tossed away because of the state of the person--would that still hold up if the husband were saying he wanted her to live, and the rest of the family wanted to let her go, trying to take her away from them?

Shouldn't the husband's desires hold exactly the same weight, no matter which direction he's pulling?

And if we must err, aren't we required, duty-bound, to err on the side of life, no matter which side is pulling in that direction?

It's the repeated assertions that she was already gone, that she was already dead, that her life was worthless, that have left us strongly feeling that some people wanted her dead precisely for moral, rather than legal, reasons.

No comments: