Spot the Misrepresentation
Ace of Spades in a post regarding Senator Tim Johnson's medical prognosis:
I can't help but notice that Johnson's minor interaction with the world is enough to keep him in the Senate, but such wasn't enough to keep Terry Schiavo alive.Now, no one's claiming Johnson is brain-dead, of course. But still, the Democrats seem to have a newfound respect for an occasional opening of the eyes.
Despite the fact that this is clearly snark (and totally irrelevant by his own admission that no one is saying that Johnson is brain-dead), the underlying assumption as to why people supported pulling the feeding tube in the Schiavo case is breathtaking in its utter incorrectness. Oddly, people did not support it based on some underlying belief that all brain-dead people should be euthanized. As I recall, the argument was along the lines of (1) people have the right to refuse life-saving medical care, including feeding tubes, (2) absent a clear written document expressing their desires, the nearest family member has the right to make a decision regarding what that person would have wanted in those circumstances, and (3) a spouse (e.g., Michael Schiavo) is the nearest family member. Therefore, if Tim Johnson were brain-dead and Barbara Johnson wanted him kept on life-support, it would thoroughly consistent for someone who supported Michael Schiavo's right to determine what should happen to Terri Schiavo to also support Barbara Johnson's right to determine what should happen to Tim Johnson. Even if Michael Schiavo and Barbara Johnson hypothetically wanted different outcomes. But why let that get in the way of an assumption of bad faith?