In defense of Thompson's Schaivo remarks
As commenter Carl Vehse points out, in context, Fred Thompson's actual comments concerning the Terry Schaivo case referred to in the previous entry don't quite say what they were reported as saying.
Thompson stated as a general principle that matters of law regarding death should be settled on a local, rather than Federal level. But he also made it clear that he did not recall the specifics of the Schaivo case, so his remark cannot fairly be interpreted as commentary either specifically on that case, or on the precise issues involved in it.
It's unfair to jump to the conclusion I jumped to: that Thompson opposes eliminating the "right to kill" granted in the infamous Cruzan v. Director decision of the Supreme Court, in which food and water were defined as medical treatment and murder by starvation confused with letting the natural process of death follow its course. But I still await clarification from Thompson on this critical question of legal and societal ethics.
Thompson stated as a general principle that matters of law regarding death should be settled on a local, rather than Federal level. But he also made it clear that he did not recall the specifics of the Schaivo case, so his remark cannot fairly be interpreted as commentary either specifically on that case, or on the precise issues involved in it.
It's unfair to jump to the conclusion I jumped to: that Thompson opposes eliminating the "right to kill" granted in the infamous Cruzan v. Director decision of the Supreme Court, in which food and water were defined as medical treatment and murder by starvation confused with letting the natural process of death follow its course. But I still await clarification from Thompson on this critical question of legal and societal ethics.
Comments