Pat Anderson has written a simple four-point outline of the major arguments in the Terri Schiavo case. Anyone can use these concise points to make the case for Terri's life.
1. A simple, gravity-operated feeding tube is used by hundreds of thousands of Americans for various reasons and should not be considered “artificial life support.”2. Provision of food and water are basic necessities to which all patients are entitled. In the absence of an express written directive to the contrary, a patient should be presumed to want to receive food and water.
3. Because of the danger of ulterior motives, an incapacitated person's life should not be ended based on the hearsay statements of others who have conflicts of interest — in this case a husband who for years has been living with another woman by whom he has fathered two children.
4. A brain-injured person's life has meaning and value, and society has no business ending a life based on a “quality of life” determination.
(Pat Anderson has been licensed to practice law in Florida since 1982 and opened a solo law practice in St. Petersburg about one week before becoming involved in the Schiavo case. And thus, she says, “dissolved my plans for an uneventful professional life.”)
