Schiavo Case Creates Pain and Questions

Re “Schiavo Called Beyond Saving,” March 28: If “being starved to death is painless,” why is Terri Schiavo being given morphine to relieve pain if she is in a “persistent vegetative state and cannot feel pain”? When did food and water become “extraordinary medical care” and morphine become ordinary care?

Karen Gatchel

Camarillo

*

The decision whether to remove Schiavo’s feeding tube is a medical decision that should have been left to her doctors and the families. Government interference at the level of intervening in treatment decisions such as this one is inappropriate and ironically at odds with the beliefs of laissez-faire conservatives.

Peter Bresler MD

Los Osos

*

After reading “Life or Death: Love’s Choice” (Column One, March 26), about a woman being kept alive in a vegetative state for over three decades, I have put my wishes in writing. I could not fathom putting family through such an ordeal. Nor could I imagine “living” in this capacity without a modicum of dignity or an ability to experience the world beyond breathing. I suppose the only positive about the Schiavo case is that many will begin to think about this issue and communicate their wishes to their loved ones.

Karen Suarez

Eagle Rock

*

Re “DeLay’s Own Tragic Crossroads,” March 27: Although I am saddened by the events that befell House Majority Leader Tom DeLay’s father and his family, it struck me as rather ironic that DeLay withheld special treatment for his severely injured father yet denies Michael Schiavo the same recourse. I am further appalled that DeLay was party to a suit against the manufacturer of the tram on which his father was injured and yet he later admonished those who seek to redress grievances through the courts. I guess these are just two examples of his “Do as I say, not as I do” ethics.

Michael Stone

Laguna Niguel

*

That your newspaper would compare the cases of DeLay’s relative and Schiavo is symptomatic of the confusion that has marked mainstream coverage of the Schiavo termination. There is simply no comparison between declining extraordinary measures to prolong life, which is permissible, and deliberate killing by withholding food and water, which is not.

John Kane

Gatineau, Canada

*

Re “A Gloomier Twilight,” Commentary, March 27: I have great respect for Michael Kinsley’s insights and ability to express them, but I think he is wrong in interpreting President Bush’s motives in the Schiavo tragedy. Principled convictions? I read it several times to make sure this wasn’t sarcasm. He claims Bush (and DeLay) “earnestly believe that human life is a gift from God that no one has the right to extinguish.” Bush signed into law in Texas the right for a hospital to “pull the plug,” even without the family’s consent if they can’t pay the bill. It ignores the fact that Texas has a more active death row than any other state. The president, DeLay and Jeb Bush have, as usual, seized the emotional and divisive issues to further their political lives.

C. Jean Cohen

Westminster

*

Kinsley’s attempt to equate the Social Security problem with the heart-rending Schiavo situation appears to me an attempt to gain his readers’ approval for assisted suicide. Kinsley states that DeLay and Bush “earnestly believe that human life is a gift from God that no one has the right to extinguish ... including the person whose life it is.” Duh! So do most of the rest of us!

I feel disappointment in The Times’ position on so many issues that are important to us who try our best to lead good lives with well-formed consciences. Please, if religious thought is anathema to The Times, Kinsleyian paganism should be, as well.

Angelo P. Calfo

Thousand Oaks