A perfectly legitimate question, IMO. My rule of thumb is this: If someone is not dying, bringing about their death by way of rationing or withholding life's necessities, indeed, constitutes killing. When someone's death is inevitable, you're looking at an entirely different kettle of fish. In the case of Schiavo, she was not dying. They had to make her dying. I don't think people expect that from our medical establishment. What happened to her was very cruel and very wrong. It also assumes that someone with disabilities (profound might they be) is not a full person. Very. very dangerous when our courts/government takes on that attitude.

I fail to see how Schindler is making this about himself or politicizing his sister. What I read was about other people and their rights - not his. He didn't say a word against healthcare reform - only that he's worried about how vulnerable people might be treated in the long run.

Sounds like you're the one politicizing. If it were your sister, when would you cry Uncle? Terri was treated like a farm chicken and this happens all the time with other people.

The point that I got from this editorial was that doctors know little about these conditions, the public knows even less and the government knows even less than that. Schindler's entire missive was about the risks we face when we give up our rights in favor of...