Why this case matters

The Terri Schiavo case is about more than just her life, as valuable and precious as it is. Peggy Noonan has some important observations, but I'd like to add my own. This case is about the state's ability to kill an innocent person. Let's be clear, the state (in this case the judiciary) is ordering that a woman be starved to death. The order is that no one may give her food and water, because that is what they think she would have wanted. This is not about life support being discontinued - she can breathe and swallow on her own. It is about a husband's right to decide his disabled wife's future, even when in a clear conflict of interest, and about the state's ability to intervene in order to save a life. In many ways, it's about the power struggle between the legislative and judicial branches, and the judges are winning. And most importantly it's about the value of human life. As Noonan points out, "God made you or he didn't. If he did, your little human life is, and has been, touched by the divine. If this is true, it would be true of all humans, not only some. And so--again, if it is true--each human life is precious, of infinite value, worthy of great respect." Some argue we should have the right to take our own lives if the circumstances are desparate or dark enough. I disagree, but don't think that's the battle worth fighting. What is worth fighting is the ability of the healthy to decide the fate of the disabled. One of the doctors in this case is on record as saying that people with alzeimer's disease should be starved to death, and that people in a vegitative state (an admitedly subjective diagnosis) have no constitutional rights. Either human life is valuable and should be protected in all it's forms or it shouldn't. It is and it should.