I've commented in the past, both here and in the comments on other blogs, on the current controversy in Florida over whether Terri Schiavo should be kept alive through feeding tubes. My initial, visceral reaction to the situation was that it's wrong, and probably illegal, to starve/dehydrate Terri to death. But I remained uncertain, because there were many claims, counter-claims and accusations swirling around. My bias toward life, though, made me feel that it would be wrong to remove the tubes from Terri's body.

But one thing kept niggling at the back of my mind, and I eventually realized that my opinions were based entirely on the commentary by others on the situation. I hadn't researched the underlying basis for what has transpired. This realization was clarified when I read this post by James Joyner at OTB, which linked to this timeline of events in the Schiavo case, with further links to the base documentation as the case transpired.

After reading the court's decision on the original petition to remove Terri Schiavo's life support, as well as other legal documentation in this case, I have sadly come to the opinion that removing Terri's feeding tubes is the appropriate action. Everyone is free to disagree with me, of course. In the end, though, our various opinions don't matter, but it's still worth discussing.

Any facts that should be brought to bear in this case should have been brought up in that trial, which lasted from 1998 to 2000. It's important to note that many of the accusations that are swirling around concern events that happened well before that trial. So why weren't they brought forward during the trial? Some of them, in fact, were presented to the judge at that time, and they were rejected as either not credible or not germane to the case. And for the "newer" accusations, why haven't these people spoken up before now?

I'll agree that new accusations of actions taken since that original trial have surfaced recently, but all of them that were presented to the various courts have been rejected as either not credible or not germane. If there are others that are, in fact, both credible and germane, why have they not been presented in any of the hearings before the courts?

Much has been said that, upon reflection, is meant to sway opinion through emotion, without factual basis, and sometimes borders on slander. For example, a persistent theme is that it's illegal to starve a dog to death, but we can starve Terri to death. This is a false analogy. If a dog is sufficiently healthy to eat and drink on its own, it would certainly be illegal to deprive it of food and water. But if the dog could only be kept alive by feeding it intravenously, it would be acceptable, in many cases expected, to euthanize it. This is just one example of the extent that supporters of the Schindler family have tried to tilt the debate without regard to facts or reality.

I have a personal experience which touches on this case, and which helps inform my opinion, but I'll save that for another posting. For now, I'll conclude by saying that, while it's sad that Terri Schiavo is in her current condition, I reluctantly believe that letting her die is the appropriate course of action.

May God bless her, and all her family, in this terrible time.