Schiavo Blog

1. Plainly, the central controversy is should Teri Schiavo’s feeding tube be put back in. Yet it’s much more than that. The question of the constitutionality of the Schiavo Law congress passed is important. Schiavo’s parents’ religious concerns for her “soul” also come into question and if she was represented well in the initial case.

2. Competing are Teri’s parents and her husband Michael. Many others are also involved – such as their Franciscan monk spiritual advisor, the Bush Bros., republicans searching for respect by the Christian right, etc. Against that crowd is Michael Schiavo, the court system’s precedence, common sense, etc.

3. Many of those in the Republican Party urge that Teri Schaivo has the right to live, because life is sacred.
Her parents say that Schaivo’s Catholicity should be enough to put the tube back, as the Pope said people should not deny themselves water (even though she’s not denying it to herself, but whatever). So the Catholic Church is involved I guess.

4. The article was quite in-depth and provided enough information to understand the complexities. Some of the specific details were farther down the article, but it all came together eventually.

5. Enough, but further examination could be needed.

6. Not mentioned in the article is if starving her is humane. Surely the topic of euthanasia is relevant here. She can still feel pain I imagine, even if she cannot comprehend it in a meaningful way. But is just pulling the tube ethical? What about a quick lethal injection? What about the legality of such an action – what issues should be brought into the light as this story progresses? The Right to Die movement? More research on vegetable states and brain activity? Perhaps better suited in an opinion, science, or feature article, these things should definitely be discussed more.

7. I liked how it had many quotes from the differing sides of the case. I need to try and get more quotes.

8. The structure was a little confusing. The beginning of the story could have been explained in a better manner. The first two paragraphs felt vaguely confusing without reading further. Also there was no explanation as to why the Federal case was now in Atlanta and not Florida.