hard decisions

There’s a high-profile story going on at the moment where there have been court appeals and counter-appeals by the husband and family of a woman who has been in what doctors call a “persistent vegatative state” after being brain damaged seven years ago. The husband, who is the legal guardian, argues that she would not have wanted to be kept alive in the state she’s in and that she should be allowed to die by being taken off life support. Her parents and brother are arguing against this. It’s all rather a horrible story, not just in of course the life and death situation, but the fact that there’s so much political and media grandstanding, with contradictions all over the place, as noted by Paul and others.
It reached new lows for me when I noticed the following paragraph in today’s Washington Post update:

“The Schindlers’ attorneys argued that allowing their brain-damaged daughter to die before the federal courts can review her case would violate Congress’s will and lead to the ‘damnation of her soul’ because it would conflict with her religious beliefs.”

Welcome back, 17th century! They should know perfectly well that the courts, at least in the United States, don’t give a hoot about souls. Courts are here to uphold the laws of states and the Union, not religious beliefs which people may or may not have.

Leave a Reply