Live and Let a The Way Things Sometimes Are >) CF Miley, Opinions Editor “Little Tony was sitting on a park bench munching on one candy bar after another. After the sixth candy bar, a man on the bench across from him said, ‘Son, you know eating all that candy isn’t good for you. It will give you acne, rot your teeth, and make you fat. Little Tony replied, “My grandfather University of Lethbridge D | lived to be 107 years old’ The man asked, ‘Did your grandfather eat six candy bars at a time?” Little Tony answered, ‘No, he minded his own fucking business.” —Excerpted from The Guns and Dope Party, Position Paper #23 Terri Schiavo died this morning (March 31, 2005). In case you’ve been away from US media for the last two weeks, Schiavo was the comatose Florida woman who had her feeding tube removed at the behest of her husband and over the objections of her parents, religious protestors, and US President George W. Bush. I found myself staring aghast at my TV as this drama unfolded. I couldn’t believe how the “right to life” argument intertwined so easily with Mr. Schiavo’s want to let his ex-wife pass on. Terri Schiavo was in a vegetative state for the past 15 years following a 1990 heart attack that resulted in her brain being severely damaged. A feeding tube was keeping her alive, but her quality of life was near nil. Her ex-husband finally decided to accept the inevitable, have her feeding tube removed, and let her die. Mr. Schiavo’s decision was consistently found to be in line with Terri Schiavo’s last sentient expressed wishes. Then the fireworks began. Senatots came out of the woodwork to argue the case for keeping Terri Schiavo alive. US Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, argued that it was cruel to sim- ply remove Schiavo’s feeding tube and let her starve to death. I actually agree with him on this one point. It was cruel to let Terti Schiavo starve to death. Rather than becoming a symbol of the need to further instill so-called religious values on US cit- izens, Tetri Schiavo’s case should be seen as the exercise of one woman’s wishes for her own life, as expressed when she had the capacity to do so. To starve her was cruel. Her life could have been ended by a fatal injection while under anesthesia. Why not let her die quickly and peaceful- ly, for Christ’s sake? Yes, I said, “for Pe In support of the Alberta government's renewed commitment to post-secondary access, the University of Lethbridge is restoring the admission standards that have served the University and students so well for more than 10 years. Please note the following U of L admission changes: - Admission GPA for new transfer applicants is 2.0° (based on a 4-point grade scale) - Admission deadline: June 1, 2005 *Based on traditional course-by-course transferable courses For details, please visit www.uleth.ca April 6/2005 Christ’s sake.” I feel Bill Edwards, on american- thinker.com, said it perfectly in the following passages: “The sole pending question in this case is whether Terri Schiavo wished to be kept alive in a condi- radically diminished capacity. The Florida court charged with answering that question has concluded that her last competent wish was to not prolong her own tion of life in the circumstance in which she now exists, or might reasonably hope to exist later on. That answer has survived review by, or petition for review to, every higher court in the state and federal systems. It is therefore ‘the law of the case. In the law, unless there is a change in circumstance that justifies further review, the discussion has conclud- ed. The interests [that those seek- ing legal injunctions to reapply Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube] seek to promote, therefore, are not hers. But neither Mrs. Schiavo’s parents,’ Mr. Schiavo’s, the President’s, the Pope’s, yours, mine, or anyone else’s opinion or preference is cur- rently in issue. If Ms. Schiavo’s preference for her own life is con- trary to God’s will, then He will no doubt take up directly with her the matter of her exercise of the free will He granted her. As a Christian, however, I am unaware of a bibli- cal basis on which we might consider ourselves invited by the Almighty to suspend Ms. Schiavo’s exetcise of the free will He gave her. Similarly, as a citizen of the United States, I am unaware of a legal, political, or ethical basis on which we might consider ourselves justified in contradicting Ms. Schiavo’s most fundamental deci- sion as a free woman.” Mr. Edwards is a_ self-professed Christian, and yet he’s somehow seen clear to separate his personal beliefs from the beliefs of Terti Schiavo, and from the laws of his country. Bravo, Bill Edwards, you seem to me to be referring to a sepa- ration of church and state when it comes to the express, lawful wishes of an indi- vidual. Your founding fathers couldn’t have said it better themselves. www.theotherpress.ca a