Much continues to be said as Terri Schiavo’s time on this earth grows short. Some of it I agree with. Some of it I do not. As arguments grow more impassioned, it seems that we have indeed left the real world and entered a realm of bizarre fantasy.

One editorial in the WSJ raises the right’s favorite specter of “activist judges” who “impose their own values, especially in the absence of specific guidance from the law.” What kind of nonsense is that? Wasn’t Judge Greer upholding the law that says a husband is the legal guardian of his wife and vice versa? Isn’t that the sacred institution of marriage that the right is so determined to defend from incursions by the godless, hedonistic homosexuals? People have been chanting “God’s law, not man’s law” in defense of their belief that Terri’s life should continue to be sustained. Well, what about “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.” (Matthew 19:5, Genesis 2:24) Which of God’s laws do you wish to enforce? Is the institution of marriage sacred only when parents and spouses are in agreement? I guess it does only mention the man, so maybe there’s a loophole there.

It has also been suggested that the most compassionate route would be to turn Terri’s care over to her parents since they are obviously willing to assume the burden. I’m not sure that’s the most compassionate route. It is certainly the easiest. Michael Schiavo’s seems rather insistent that Terri would not wish to have her life prolonged artificially. It is interesting that he has refused to allow what are apparently routine medical tests for diagnosing persistive vegetative state. Some have suggested sinister motives. Perhaps he just feels the point is moot and fears some discovery that would do nothing to improve Terri’s condition, but give the family and politicians grounds for prolonging the battle. Perhaps he is simply a man is willing do what it takes to see his wife’s wishes carried out.

One blogger suggests that it is unlikely a 25 year old woman could have given much thought to such issues and it seems a stretch to assume Michael or Terri knew what they were talking about at such a young age. His rationale is that he is 40 and till now hasn’t given it much thought, so a 25 year old wouldn’t have given it much thought either. Well, I’m 37 and have already taken the steps necessary to ensure there is no such battle over my wishes should a similar fate befall me. I have known for a long time I do not wish my life prolonged artificially. It was probably firmly set over 15 years ago after visiting my grandmother who had lingered for years in a battle with cancer. I had been out of the country for two years. When I left, I never expected to see her alive again. I returned in August. I flew back to visit in September. She died in October. For me the real tragedy was seeing this once vital woman wan and wasted, so strung out on pain medication she barely had the cognitive power to recognize me. It rooted in me the belief that at some point one must simply let go of life and move on. What that point is a personal and individual matter. That no living will exists in Terri’s case is more likely a youthful sense of immortality that precludes one from believing that such a thing could actually happen than the lack of a firm opinion on the matter.

I must say that I have to agree with those who say it is cruel to simply deprive Terri of nourishment and let her starve to death. I will probably be stoned for suggesting that something could be done to ease and even hasten Terri’s passing. The end result is the same. The decision that Terri’s life is better ended is the same. One friend tells me that the passive act of letting nature take it’s course is better than a overt act to end a life. I guess I’m too literal a person to see much merit in such hair splitting. Being truly compassionate often means making very hard decisions. Much has been made of this drama unfolding at Easter. It seems to me the focus is always misplaced. Once again, I must ask the religious right, “Do you believe in an afterlife or not? Do you believe in a resurrection or not?” Death is not an ending, merely a transition. And, just for the record, I do not belong to some death cult.

Public debate on these issues is a good thing. It may not be possible to reach a true consensus, since faith and religion—which rarely allow for compromise—are involved. Whatever society’s eventual stand on such matters is, we should be open and public about it. In other words, we should not pretend to one morality while quietly keeping to another.