Justice?

As I write this, Terri Schiavo is starving to death. She suffered permanent brain damage over a decade ago. She is not in a coma, as some news media have incorrectly reported. She does require a feeding tube. Her husband has appealed to the courts to have the feeding tube removed, and court after court has upheld this. It seems the right to die is the ultimate human right.

But lets consider some facts about this situation. She did not leave a living will affirming a desire to avoid life prolonging medical treatment. She has not decided to die; her husband is making the choice for her. Her husband is living with another woman and has 2 children by that woman. Since he is still her husband, we stands to be the beneficiary of about one million dollars, awarded to her by a court in order to provide for her long term care. This is the man who is making decisions about her right to die, and the courts have accepted this.

But let's engage in a little speculation. If Terri had been killed, who would have had the strongest motive? Her estranged husband who would be the beneficiary of a lot of money. The same court that is accepting her husband's right to terminate her life would likely convict him if he had chosen to do the job himself. Perhaps a court should take away the money from the equation and see if he is still as interested in her "right" to die.

Finally, do the courts have the courage of their convictions? They are willing to let a person starve to death slowly. Would they be as willing to order her life taken from her suddenly? Of course not. The liberal mindset is willing to let a person die slowly because it would hurt their sense of morality to accomplish the exact same goal in a shorter period.

To me it seems that we have a legal system, but we don't have a justice system. 8-(