Terry Schiavo and America
Terry Schiavo case has been in headline of every major newspaper for over a week now. Almost immediately after the case of Ashley Smith, the lady who was held hostage overnight and was able to convince the murderer and kidnapper, Brian Nicholas, to surrender; Terry Schiavo case has touched the whole of America in a way unprecedented for the American people and for the world. The fact that a law concerning only 1 person was passed overnight by the federal government of a big country like America and signed by the President should really inspire the legislatures of this world and should make them think about the people they are serving. President George W. Bush's words that the 'laws of our society should have a presumption for life', in supporting the case of parents of Terry Schiavo, should go down in history as the basic ideology behind any law that any society deems to abide. I have never considered George Bush as a person with the respect that his position demands. Now, with words like these, I feel that he looks capable of leading a country as great as America.
Unfortunately for Terry Schiavo and her family, the federal judges of the America have not considered the new law as a right for Terry Schiavo's parents to start a new trial for saving her life. The federal case was considered in continuum with the Florida state court case by the federal judges. The purpose behind the law was to extend the life of Terry Schiavo by couple of more months or years using the long and exhaustive federal court trials. I do not know the judiciary system of America very well, but there is one thing that I do not understand. I do not know whether all the state court trials are transferred in similar way to federal courts, or if the cases are tried afresh in federal courts, or there can not be any transfer between two judiciaries and that this particular case is really an exception. If all the cases are transferred this way only, then why were the law makers not aware of it? Also, if the transferred cases should be tried afresh, then why is judiciary not considering an appeal for reinserting tube till the case is discussed? If this case is really an exception and does not fit in any of the two types, then is there any communication gap between what law makers wanted of the law and what law keepers understood of the law? I will have to wait and see if the answers to these questions come out in news.
As reader might have guessed, I am in favor of saving the life of Terry Schiavo. She got into paralysis 15 years ago. What she had said 15 years ago might not be what she wants after 15 years? Our hopes and desires change almost every year. What if after getting into this state, she had realized that this state is not really bad, only that she is not able to convey it to others, and that if she gathers her every strength, she could come out of it, if she is given enough time? We take years to gather our strengths and fight weaknesses, can't a paralyzed person take more time? The decision that she did not want to live in a vegetative state was made by her when she was conscious. If she is in now a persistent vegetative state and can not think at all as claimed by the doctors, what difference does it make to her that her will is not followed and that the will of her parents is followed? If she is currently suffering from pain and humiliation of living in this state, then it means she can feel and is not in exactly persistent state. We can surely assume that she would not complain, if she ever recovers back to her normal life, that why was she not killed before. If her medical cost had been a burden on the family, killing her could have been remotely justified.
I used to love my biology classes. I know that every life has a natural tendency to survive and find a way. Even a single cell amoeba, with no brain and a constant vegetative state, has a will and ability to survive and grow in this world.
Unfortunately for Terry Schiavo and her family, the federal judges of the America have not considered the new law as a right for Terry Schiavo's parents to start a new trial for saving her life. The federal case was considered in continuum with the Florida state court case by the federal judges. The purpose behind the law was to extend the life of Terry Schiavo by couple of more months or years using the long and exhaustive federal court trials. I do not know the judiciary system of America very well, but there is one thing that I do not understand. I do not know whether all the state court trials are transferred in similar way to federal courts, or if the cases are tried afresh in federal courts, or there can not be any transfer between two judiciaries and that this particular case is really an exception. If all the cases are transferred this way only, then why were the law makers not aware of it? Also, if the transferred cases should be tried afresh, then why is judiciary not considering an appeal for reinserting tube till the case is discussed? If this case is really an exception and does not fit in any of the two types, then is there any communication gap between what law makers wanted of the law and what law keepers understood of the law? I will have to wait and see if the answers to these questions come out in news.
As reader might have guessed, I am in favor of saving the life of Terry Schiavo. She got into paralysis 15 years ago. What she had said 15 years ago might not be what she wants after 15 years? Our hopes and desires change almost every year. What if after getting into this state, she had realized that this state is not really bad, only that she is not able to convey it to others, and that if she gathers her every strength, she could come out of it, if she is given enough time? We take years to gather our strengths and fight weaknesses, can't a paralyzed person take more time? The decision that she did not want to live in a vegetative state was made by her when she was conscious. If she is in now a persistent vegetative state and can not think at all as claimed by the doctors, what difference does it make to her that her will is not followed and that the will of her parents is followed? If she is currently suffering from pain and humiliation of living in this state, then it means she can feel and is not in exactly persistent state. We can surely assume that she would not complain, if she ever recovers back to her normal life, that why was she not killed before. If her medical cost had been a burden on the family, killing her could have been remotely justified.
I used to love my biology classes. I know that every life has a natural tendency to survive and find a way. Even a single cell amoeba, with no brain and a constant vegetative state, has a will and ability to survive and grow in this world.
