Morality vs Legality: Who wins?

1. From a Legal standpoint. Do I agree or disagree with the decision to remove the feeding tube.

I agree that it was legally sound however, on a legal morality or rather a legal ideal: I think that the courts should have exhausted all possible sources of appeal (for keeping of feeding tube) before the decision to remove the feeding tube and take Terry Schiavo's life was decided. Personally I think that the 2002 case decision (link) was rushed by Judge Greer and that the right-to-die advocate was not credible for the case. Terry was given pain medication and thus the doctors felt she could feel pain therefore not being brain-dead by definition but brain-injured, which would not be cause for removal of a feeding tube (link). However this was revealed during the autopsy after Terry's death, and frankly the doctors did their job. This advocate's ties to Michael would obviously played a factor and a second opinion should have been sought out by judge Greer.

On a second legality note, I would like to bring up the issue of the House of Representative appeal to the Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who resided over the 11th U.S. Circuit and therefore, the Schiavo case. This appeal was made after the Government Reform Commitee of the U.S. house's attempts to try and stop the removal of the feeding tubes which had been ordered previously by Greer. These attempts in turn came after the entrance of bill's aimed at saving Terry Schiavo's life however in a blatant mockery of the governmental system the bills were stalled in Congress and in the Florida Legislation [whom I'm sure were motivated to protect of their judges]. In another mockery of the United Courts and Government, the appeal was ignored! Apparently Judge Greer couldn't be found to make an official reply and thus the action went through without comment (link). She died at about 1:41 pm. At least they should have tried! The justice should have pushed for the appeal. Judge Greer should have litsened to more witnesses (which became a factor AFTER her death), and he should have at least allowed for such an appeal to happen. In this case he was thinking more of the constitutionality of the case(in other words, stability so that other cases that spark similar public and political outrage do not rise again) rather than the ideals of the case (in which he should have thought that the court was on the people's side and in a case such as this would rule on their behave fairly, not with a bias motivation).

2. Bush's decision to move the case from a state judicial court to a federal one was indeed the correct choice morality and legally. However, I think it hurt his image in the end because it highlighted the faults of the federal system as well. But back to the main point, there was clearly something wrong with Judge Greer's handling of the case. And on a morality issue, the parents of Terry were begging nationally for support and tried every possible option to save thier daughter's life. It was the correct thing to do, who is to say who dies? No one should be able to. I believe that that individual should even not be able to, it would be suicide. What, so people in vegestative conditions can be killed if they stated before hand? How about a disabled person? How about a handicapped person? What if they have it in their will before-hand. Watch the video One by Metalica and ask yourself those questions. And so, I think Bush was a kind man who saw a parent's plea and being one himself he sympathized with the parents. He also sought to darken the light cast upon the fault of the state Judicial system. And so he brought it to the federal level, it was a correct decision...at least thats what we believed at the time.

3. The federal system does have the power to hand one's life into the hand's of a family member. I just don't think that they should be allowed. But this an argument that will never be one and one on my side will always look like a radical or a heartless human, both of these conjectures are wrong but in the eyes of the average person whom society has born and recieves, they will see me or those on my side as no different. It would be a different case if I was disabled and had these convictions but I am not. Now, aside from the little rant there, I believe that the federal system will always have the power to hand one's life into the grasp of the closest family member in the American Governmental system. The only question left is what denotes a stronger tie? Strict family bonds like parent's or spouses? I think the only way to deliberate such a thing is to take all of the possesions of that person's life, gather all the evidence presented and come to a decision as too which the person would allow to do so.

End of the Blog. Hope you had fun reading it.