Columnists for Starvation

Richard Cohen's latest column is the kind of writing/thinking that makes you sit back and realize how just how depraved people can be. Terri Schiavo who is a living human being has not had nutrition or hydration for almost six days yet to Cohen the Democrats are the real losers.

In his column, Cohen bashes the Democrats for a lack of leadership regarding Terri Schiavo. And not the lack of leadership working to save the life of a starving woman (who has no written directives and may or may not be in a PVS) but the lack of leadership working to make sure that Terri continues to starve.

"But for me the real loser was the Democratic Party."

A woman is starving to death and the real loser is the Democratic Party because they didn't stand up and back this forced starvation?

Two parents are watching their daughter die and can do nothing but appeal case after case and the real loser is the Democratic Party?

Large portions of our country look the other way as a woman who isn't in a coma, who isn't brain dead and isn't on life support is denied food and the real loser is the Democratic Party?

"Still, it seemed that the party's highest principle was to have almost none at all."

What would Mr. Cohen have their highest principle be? Starvation for all? Death is best? No MRIs or PETs for those supposedly in a PVS state? The adulterous husband is always right?

Ellen Goodman's recent column also leaves me scratching my head.

THIS IS the phrase running through my head whenever I think of Terri Schiavo: May she rest in peace. When will this become a benediction rather than a question?

Kind of reminds me of Michael's quote, "When is that ***** gonna die?"

My guess is that Terri was resting, probably fairly peacefully, until her only feeding tube was removed 6 days ago.

And don't forget the infamous ''talking points" memo ABC News found reminding Republican senators that ''the prolife base will be excited" and it's a ''great political issue."

Are columnists really this slow? Numerous bloggers, especially Powerline were all over these fishy memos yesterday.

Her cerebral cortex, the part of our anatomy that controls our ability to think and feel, is the consistency of Jell-O.

And you know this how? Did Goodman pick up a medical degree recently? Has she examined Terri's brain?

More to the point, bioethicists will also tell you that this case is about the right to refuse medical treatment -- chemotherapy, blood transfusions, or, yes, food and water. Can we make that decision, and if not, who can? Decades of hard cases have established our right to say no, and state legislation has determined that our spouses, adult children, parents -- in that order -- can act for us. In Florida, the courts determined that Michael Schiavo knew what his wife wanted and spoke for her.

Should depressed teenagers be allowed to starve themselves to death because food and water have unfortunately been defined as "medical treatment?" If they can't make that decision, then who can? Please not Big Brother.

Did Terri ever get the right to say no? Has Goodman discovered Terri's written directives? "The courts determined?" And we all know that the courts can't be wrong. Why can't I say, "Congress determined that Terri's life should receive another hearing" or "Members of Congress determined that we should err on the side of life." Are the courts some kind of omniscient power that is infallible and whose judgements can't be challenged?

Also notice how Cohen and Goodman both cite an ABC poll which falsely claimed that Terri was on "life support."

HT: The Corner