You may be surprised that I agree with the concept of "right-to-die." You will probably not be surprised that I don't think that's what this case is about at all. I agree with this e-mail from a liberal reader that I read at National Review online. It sums up my feelings on "right-to-die" in general and this case in particular pretty well (sorry for the length):
"I've been listening to the BBC and NPR today -- I confess, I'm basically a liberal but mostly I'm a political junkie and enjoy reading opinion from all over the spectrum.
In any case, what has struck me with the BBC and NPR is that there has been no mention, zilch, about the actual disputes in this case: the fact that there are some clear conflicts of interest surrounding Shaivo's husband, that the only evidence of her wishes regarding life support come from him, and that there is medical disagreement about Terri's condition and prospects, with her husband having virtually prevented examination by any but his own doctors and from attempting any rehabilitation. I've heard a bit of discussion about the debate about her status, but quite literally zero mention of the conflict of interest situation -- the "fiancee", the money at stake, multiple affidavits attesting to Shciavo talking about what he'll buy with the money, etc.
Overall, I'm in the "right to die" camp; I've voted for Oregon's assisted suicide law twice.
But in this case it seems that debate isn't over rights, but facts: what were Terri's wishes and what is her condition? It seems to me extremely dangerous to establish a precedent that the next of kin alone can not only make all decisions, supposedly based on a patient's wishes and their medical status, but, then also giving the next of kin sole right to announce what those wishes were and to determine how the patient's condition will be determined. Given the obvious conflicts of interest that can arise over inheritance, etc., such a system invites abuse.
While I usually think you conservatives are whining about "liberal bias", given how important the context is to understanding this case and given how easy that information is to find, I can't help suspecting that the fact that this case came to national attention due to lobbying by the religious right means that the "elite media" have automatically come down against it (even though the "money grubbing husband wants to kill wife" theme would normally have appeal)."
