Warning, may cause head to explode from sheer disgust.
'Think of the Terri Schiavo case as another red-vs.-blue issue. Congress, Republican-dominated and therefore mostly red, asked the federal courts to take a fresh look. The federal judiciary, in its customary imperial blue, contemptuously told Congress to take a hike. It wouldn't delay the execution for even a few days. For that, you need to be a convicted cop killer.'
John Leo, conservative hack and baldfaced liar.
You know its bad when the fibs start from line one and don't stop till the end.
This wasn't a red vs. blue case, it was red vs the insane red case. The Federal Courts correctly figured this case was none of their business and that Congress has exceeded its authority. Its not an execution, its simply following the last wishes of the woman before her brain died. And then for good measure, why is this idiot bringing up a New York Case to compare to a Florida case?
Still with me? More on the flip.
'Color the mainstream media blue. Photos of pro-lifers usually show people who seem to be unbalanced, waving Bibles, rolling their eyes crazily -- right out of the playbook for anti-abortion coverage. The nearly identical headlines in several papers saying, "How the Personal Became the Political," reflect a media consensus that the anti-death side is intruding where it doesn't belong.'
Color this op/ed moron insane red and blind. Why were 'pro-lifers' shown as insane kooks? Because that's how they choose to behave in front of the cameras, unless of course we're supposed to believe that somehow the media FORCED them to act like violent nutballs?
Media Consensus? The only media consensus seemed to be in FAVOR of the rightwing wackos, save for a few who decided to report on the facts instead of Republican Propoganda. It was a PUBLIC Consensus that Bush and his minions crossed the line and went too far when they stuck their opportunistic beaks into this case. But then again, good ol John hasn't been using any facts yet in his claims, so why should he start now?
I'll skip his rant against 'liberals' (well, okay I couldn't skip the whole thing since that would mean I'd have finished his entire op/ed).
'Instead of the traditional emphasis on the sanctity of life, bioethics began to stress the quality of life, meaning that many damaged humans, young and old, don't qualify for personhood because their lives have lost value. The nonpersons should be allowed to die and in some cases be killed.
So Leo thinks an individual's wishes should not be honored? That there is no limit to what must be done to 'preserve' life? Maybe he'd like to spend some time in a soundproof room alone with the thousands of family members who were forced to make that painful decision to shut off life support, baseball bats optional of course. And don't worry Leo, if your cerbral cortex goes splut, nobody would know the difference with you.
This explains why so few bioethicists have protested what the state and her husband planned for Terri Schiavo, who is severely damaged, but not in pain or dying, not brain-dead, and in no position to protest her own execution on grounds that other people consider it best for her.
John Leo M.D., so why is such an obviously trained neurologist with magic powers of non-examination diagnosis writing crappy op/eds when he could make a fortune treating rich dumb Republican Congressmen?
Oh right, cerbral cortex, mush. And Terri's wishes not to exist like that.
' The Schiavo case is a breakthrough for persuading the public to lower the bar on moral constraints. Once we had a bright line between pulling the plug on patients kept alive by life-support systems and killing people like Terri Schiavo, who are not on life support but merely being fed through a tube.'
A feeding tube is lifesupport. Granted that pulling it is not so quick as the ventilator or the heart pump, but I'd say that a nice peaceful metabolic coma is a LOT less painful then having to suffocate to death. And it helps that there isn't anything left of Terri's personality to feel it.
'Requiring clear evidence of consent is no longer required. In the Schiavo case, we have vaguely remembered consent from a party with a vested interest (the husband) some eight years after the patient was stricken.'
Well gee whiz, obviously legal guardians should NEVER have a vested interest in their wards, be sure to let all the mothers and fathers of their children know that. And all other husbands and wives too. Heck, why not just disqualify the entire legal system while we're at it?
Did it maybe ever cross what passes for a mind in there that the reason the husband waited so long was because that was how long it took to show she would NEVER recover? Its amazing that EVERY reporter, opinion and politician who speaks ill of Michael NEVER bothered to actually check the records or meet the man in a civil manner.
Honestly, I'd be willing to write op/eds for the newsies for less then what they pay this guy, and I wouldn't even lie. What a bargain, eh?