Terry Schiavo is minimally conscious, but, apparently, that just isn’t good enough. After years of legal wrangling, the feeding tube keeping her alive is due to be removed tomorrow, February 25. After this happens, she will suffer and slowly die of dehydration! While Terri dies, her husband will be free to carry out the rest of his life, perhaps finally marrying the woman with whom he has been carrying on an adulterous relationship, baring two children in the process! Paying the medical bills involved with caring for Terri must represent an “undue burden” which the courts are about to lift from his shoulders forever.

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family is absolutely right in this case when he said on Fox News Channel’s Hannity & Colmes show this evening, February 24, that removal of the feeding tube is tantamount to murder. If the decision to remove Terri’s feeding tube stands, where will the line be drawn in the future? What constitutes an “undue burden” on society? At what point is it justified to murder someone rather than to reasonably accomodate their needs? Today we find ourselves deeply concerned about issues of accessibility, transportation options and social attitudes regarding our blindness. We advocate for such reasonable accomodations as greater accessibility of information technology and the right to continue traveling on airlines with our guide dogs. Some reject our efforts claiming that they represent an “undue burden” to the operation of their business. Where does that “undue burden” argument end? Will we find ourselves in the distant future in a struggle for our very lives? Bioethicists like Dr. Peter Singer must be delighted.

We must speak out loudly and clearly against murder and euthanasia in all its forms: abortion, physician assisted suicide and withdrawal of life saving medical treatment! This should be a relevant and lively topic of discussion. All comments are highly encouraged.