The Ragged edge

another resource for pro life types is the ragged edge magazine.

".....The idea that the state should not have the power to selectively starve and dehydrate people may be proved controversial after all.

This is because the issue is not really about personal autonomy, as last year's Schiavo editorials would have us believe. No; the issue really comes down to differences of opinion over whether this or that particular life is "worth saving."

For some, the answer is "not if the person can't talk or feed himself" (you know, if the person ends up a little like Stephen Hawking). For others, the answer is, "no, not if the person can't be expected to make a "full recovery" (you know, return to "normal").

... most families eventually agonize over how much progress is enough to keep life support going, said Dr. Michael Grodin, director of biomedical ethics at Boston University. Is it enough that the patient is breathing on his or her own and showing normal sleep-wake cycles, even if there is no prospect of being able to talk or feed themselves? Or does the patient need to substantially return to normal?...

If Haleigh suffered severe strokes on both sides of her brain, as indicated in medical testimony in court records, she may have the potential for only a limited recovery of consciousness at best...( from "DSS to seek outside expertise in Haleigh case," The Boston Globe, Jan. 21, 2006)

There certainly seems to be a lot of latitude here -- for families, for the state when it becomes "family."

Diane Coleman has a phrase for this as well: The "dismantling of rights."

My question for my fellow liberals: exactly at what point would you join disability activists in drawing the line? Or do you just want to let the bioethicists sort it all out?........