Right to die?

I'd been looking for a way to say this, but Mark Byron already has:

That's one of the things that gets me on the Schiavo case. There wasn't a living will here or clear wishes of the patient. When newspapers call this a "right to die" case, they assume that the patient wants to die. Her [insert less-than-polite pejorative] husband says she does, but he's appeared to be an amoral [insert another impolite noun] in this case, having concieved at least two children out of wedlock while his wife has been down for the count. That's a judgement call that most papers don't make. Usually, they try to bend over backwards to be neutral, gaging before using the words "partial birth' for example.

Also, in most cases marked "right to die" the issue is not about removing a feeding tube. Most of those cases involve removing a respirator or other device which is artficially performing a function the body can't. In those cases, the patient would probably die within minutes because their body has failed to function and the machines are keeping them alive artificially. Removing artficial life support is a far cry from starving someone to death.

Comments

[greg]

I couldn't help but catch James Taranto's witless and unforgivable stab at humor in BotW last week: "But if They Have a Healthy Son, They'll Love Him All the Same" as the link to the headline: "Parents hoping for comatose daughter"

I cancelled my subscription immediately. What was he thinking? That was funny?