So, the astute among you will notice that there used to be a post here that isn’t anymore. If you missed it, too bad. It was basically a criticism of a local real estate agent’s web page (and her apparent approach to the web in general), and I decided the spirit of it wasn’t the sort of thing I want this space to become. Yes, I’m all over the map, but I’d prefer the map to be predominantly positive/thoughtful/curiously random and not so much critical and snipish, particularly about such small things.
Now, if we’re talking politics or other big-picture issues, like whether or not to allow one person to decide when to end another person’s “artifical life support”, more commonly known as “food”, that’s another matter. Folks, we’re not talking about a vegetable here. We’re talking about a living, breathing human being who had a stroke. A woman whose husband is living with and has fathered children by another woman. A woman whose parents and siblings want to take care of her. Despite my opinion of it, I can understand from a human standpoint the husband’s desire to move on with his life. But doesn’t it seem strange for him to have to have her killed to do that? Let’s be clear about this point — she would be killed. She would not be “allowed to die a natural death” any more than you or I would if we were locked in a room and refused food and water. It’s starvation, plain and simple.
I don’t know. I’m never one to advocate divorce, and I understand that a “normal legal divorce” may not even be possible given her current state. But for heaven’s sake, wouldn’t it be better to make an exception or change the law or something, than to try to find a legal standing for killing the poor woman?!? It just seems like there should be some way to resolve this that doesn’t involve killing an inconveniently incapacitated person who, again, has people willing to care for her.