Majikthise:
Morally and legally, the Terri Schiavo case is about a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment. …there is an overwhelming consensus any adult has the right to refuse any medical treatment. Disabled and incapacitated patients retain this right. The only difference is that these patients must be represented by guardians charged to speak on their behalf.
The Schindlers and their supporters have no principled objections to the system by which guardians are appointed. They aren’t arguing that parents are more appropriate guardians than spouses in general, or that the Federal courts should arbitrate all guardianship cases, or even that the withdrawal of feeding tubes is unethical. All they care about is reversing a decision on a case in which they have a personal stake.
This post should be read in its entirety. Another is promised soon.
Christian Science Monitor:
Should a bill on Schiavo pass the Congress and be signed by the president, as expected, the case still faces judicial review – and a ticking clock. Last week, the Supreme Court rejected without comment a House committee’s emergency request to order the feeding tube reinserted while appeals were pending.
“It would appear to be the kind of legislative grandstanding that Chief Justice Rehnquist, if he were up to speed and in good health, would swat away in an instant,” says Patrick Gudridge, a law professor at the University of Miami.
Emphasis mine.