The Terry Schiavo case exposed that lie a bit for what it is. Terry never wrote down anywhere that she'd want to be starved and dehydrated to death if she were ever critically ill. Terry never led anyone to believe she would want that--not in any legally verifiable way, of course. Her decision was made for her by her unfaithful lout of a husband who wanted to move on and marry the floozy he was shacking up with; not suprisingly, only Michael Schiavo and a couple of his relatives magically "remembered" that Terry would want to die--and this was long after Schiavo had demanded money to care for Terry for her presumably normal life span. With the "help" of a judicial accomplice to Terry's death (the infamous Judge Greer), Michael was able to get what he wanted--and even to get a Catholic wedding to the woman with whom he committed adultery against Terry, something that quite simply should never have been allowed.
As horrifying, terrible, and unconsionable as the legal murder of Terry Schiavo by her husband, a judge, and a staff of medical Judasas at the death camp where she was so unfortunate as to be placed really is, I think this new case in Australia has the potential to be an even greater offense against innocent life:
JOANNE Dunn wants her son to die in her arms. Mark Leigep, 34, has been in a vegetative state for more than three years.
His mother wants the right to "put him to sleep" humanely using morphine.
"So he can die in our arms and we can all be there when he passes away," Ms Dunn said.
"Mark isn't coming back. He's my baby and they should let my baby go."
Mr Leigep, father to Kaitlyn, 7, suffered major head injuries in a car crash in Elizabeth in 2006.
Euthanasia is illegal in South Australia and his situation sparked a right-to-life debate at the time of him entering a coma. [...]
Doctors removed Mr Leigep's feeding tube twice in 2006, but it was replaced following family disagreements that year.
The tube was then removed by doctors again in the same year, but Royal Adelaide Hospital administration ordered the tube be replaced. [...]
It is possible the family could stop feeding Mr Leigep, but Ms Dunn said they did not want to starve him to death.
"I just want the Government to realise that technology says Mark's not coming back. He's brain dead," she said.
"I want them to let him go peacefully and humanely with his family around him, so we can have our closure and so Mark's not dying on his own."
Do you get this? Mark Leigep's family wants him dead. And it's perfectly legal for them to remove his feeding tube and watch him die. But that's not good enough for his mother--oh, no. She demands the right to have him put down, like an animal, with a lethal dose of morphine (administered by a health care worker, no doubt; the idea that any health care worker would object to a little light murder here and there is so old-fashioned in our post-abortive world, isn't it?).
Even the headline on the article is a lie--"Mother wants son to be allowed to die." No, not really. She wants him killed. Call it a really, really, really late-term abortion, if you like; she's demanding the right to choose whether he lives or dies, and not only that, but what sort of death will make her more comfortable (quick shot of morphine, instead of an agony of pain and terror like Terri's fourteen day Passion).
Here in America, Washington and Oregon currently allow assisted suicide; Montana allows physicians to prescribe lethal drugs for their suicidal patients to self-administer. We're still standing at the precipice of this particular slippery slope, though cases like Terri Schiavo's remind us how easy it is for unscrupulous, self-interested relatives to demand the right to starve and dehydrate their "loved ones" to death. How long before we begin to move forward, to that place where anybody can be put to death by their relatives, regardless of their expressed wishes ahead of time? And how long before the "right to die" becomes the duty to die, to quit being a drain on a future national health care system, to let some nurse or physician's assistant inject you with a lethal cocktail so your impatient family members can get that outdated and primitive ritual called the funeral over with and get back to their selfish and miserable little lives?
I wonder if Mark Leigep, in some corner of his mind that is somehow still cognizant (as some comatose patients have later reported) or some arena of his immortal soul that knows just what's going on, ever asks himself these kinds of questions.