David Ancell / Thursday October 30, 2003
Leave it to the New York Times to give us a one-sided account of Terri’s Fight. They are portraying Michael Schiavo as a crusader for Terri’s “wish” never to be kept alive “artificially.” If feeding a person is keeping her alive artificially, then all of us are alive only artificially.
Here are a couple of telling highlights, from no less a source than the ACLU:
“Based on the precedent of this case,” Mr. Simon said, “meddling politicians could set aside court orders they don’t agree with and veto any decision made by a patient or family members.”
Um, hello, the law specifically held that the governor only has jurisdicition to do what he did when there is a dispute among family members and no advance directives by the patient. This was also made clear in Bush’s exeutive order. There is also no indication that any rehabilitation was ever attempted.
By the way, Mr. ACLU dude, aren’t you the guys who try to have any law you don’t agree with declared unconstitutional. Indeed, your comment almost sounds to me like we just ought to let judges legislate. No, wait, they do that anyway.
Let’s not forget that the NYT also omitted a few things that would show a conflict of interest, such as the girlfriend by whom Mr. Schiavo has conceived two children. How about that medical trust fund that he will inherit? Even without making a definitive judgement, these are big enough conflicts of interest that ought to make any judge with any kind of sense stop and think.
If you thought that evidence of bias in the media is lacking, you need not think that anymore. I wonder if Larry King or the NYT will give the Schindlers any kind of hearing. I’d be surprised if they did.
Category: Posts imported from Danger! Falling Brainwaves, Uncategorized
« Blogging Report
Vatican II Resource »
No comments have been made on this post.
Please note that all comments are moderated, and they will be posted once approved.