Friday, March 25, 2005

In today's WSJ, both the lead editorial and Daniel Henninger's signed column argue that the proper outcome - both legal and moral - would have been for Michael Schiavo to have handed guardianship of his wife to her parents so they could tend to her...

If indeed Terri Schiavo's wishes were to not be sustained by artifical means, then how do you argue the moral thing for him to do would be to abandon the committment he made to his wife that he would carry out her wish? What kind of message does that send to her in the afterlife? That seeing her wishes carried out was too troublesome for him to bother with? That he's just washed his hands of her and gone on his way? How is it moral for the courts to order him to walk away? The court found that he was abiding by her wishes - telling him that on one hand we believe him at the same time we're telling him to take a hike doesn't seem all that right and proper.

I'm also troubled by the suggestion that awarding guardianship to the Schindler's would have been the proper legal outcome. Just because someone is willing to put in the money and time keeping someone alive does not entitle them to meddle. When did the WSJ become an advocate of Hillary's vilage? Are the WSJ and Henninger drawing the line at parents? Supposedly non-estranged parents? Where? How about pro-life activists with a bank account and a lot of spare time?

Henninger's title "Schiavo Case Made Bad Law and Good Politics" is apt... but his desired outcome would not make very good law either....