Has the Schiavo case Become a Political Football?

Eric Cohen is editor of the New Atlantis and resident scholar at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

Some questions for Schiavo pro-lifers:

1. Why exactly are you rallying to keep her alive?

2. Why is the decision made by the courts inadequate?

3. Why is "erring on the side of life" in this instance so critical?

4. If Michael had not begun another life with another woman, would his intentions be regarded as less malicious?

5. If the malpractice insurance money would have gone anywhere alse but his bank account, would his intentions seem less malicious?

6. If you were Michael, would you want to keep your partner in the same state for another 15 years? Is enough ever enough?

Some questions for Schiavo pro-lifers:

1. Why exactly are you rallying to keep her alive?

2. Why is the decision made by the courts inadequate?

3. Why is "erring on the side of life" in this instance so critical?

4. If Michael had not begun another life with another woman, would his intentions be regarded as less malicious?

5. If the malpractice insurance money would have gone anywhere alse but his bank account, would his intentions seem less malicious?

6. If you were Michael, would you want to keep your partner in the same state for another 15 years? Is enough ever enough?

Brandon:

Give it a friggin' break. Can you possibly answer those questions? I seriously doubt it...

Some questions for Schiavo pro-lifers:

1. Why exactly are you rallying to keep her alive?
Starving and denying water to animals is illegal. It should be for people, too, unless they left instructions. Her wishes are not clearly known. I don't trust her husband to act in her best interests.---That being said--I think she's past the point of return, now, and it would likely be more cruel to grab her back from the jaws of death--just to do the whole thing over again in a few months.
2. Why is the decision made by the courts inadequate?
It may not be--but with like other cases, I'd like to know the evidence they used to make the decision--because from what I can see--there is no adequate evidence.

3. Why is "erring on the side of life" in this instance so critical?
If you were going to make a decision to allow someone to live, or to kill them--and you weren't sure which they wanted--which would you be less guilty of a serious crime, if you were wrong? Which one is permanent?
4. If Michael had not begun another life with another woman, would his intentions be regarded as less malicious? Probably. His affections are divided. His loyalties are divided. If he were devoted to his wife, it would be easier to believe his intentions were in her best interest.

5. If the malpractice insurance money would have gone anywhere alse but his bank account, would his intentions seem less malicious?
Very likely. Conflict of interest.
6. If you were Michael, would you want to keep your partner in the same state for another 15 years? Is enough ever enough?
If I knew my husband's wishes, I would likely have helped him leave the world in a humane way. I will say this. This case has caused a lot of people to get Living Wills. We are completing ours this week.

One opinion. Would be interested to see others. Might advance increased understanding on both sides.

4. If Michael had not begun another life with another woman, would his intentions be regarded as less malicious? Probably. His affections are divided. His loyalties are divided. If he were devoted to his wife, it would be easier to believe his intentions were in her best interest.

6. If you were Michael, would you want to keep your partner in the same state for another 15 years? Is enough ever enough?
If I knew my husband's wishes, I would likely have helped him leave the world in a humane way. I will say this. This case has caused a lot of people to get Living Wills. We are completing ours this week.

Beating a dead horse, people.