"He instinctively can find the shining greatness of our American culture and does a good job of highlighting it (although he also does have those rare lapses when he writes about hockey, but that is something caused by impurities in the Eastern waters or something)." Erik Keilholtz
Under the patronage of St. Tammany
Mark C. N. Sullivan is an editor at a Massachusetts university. He is married and the father of three children. Email
Terri Schiavo has been short-changed all along the line, her supporters maintain.
The question at our house: How is it her interests -- what we perceive to be her interests, anyway -- have not been more effectively advanced over the years?
Poor representation? An obtuse or obstructionist judge? There's a huge flurry of activity now, after it's too late, but how is it that arguments on her behalf that so many of us find compelling have gone nowhere in the legal system over the years?
The question isn't rhetorical, but put in the hope that someone with more extensive knowledge of the case can explain.
* * *
Ellen Goodman and CBS News cite polls that find American public opinion strongly against restoring Terri Schiavo's feeding tube.
Interestingly, an AP story on the blogosphere debate over Terri Schiavo observes:
[A] majority of blog commentators express outrage that society would allow a person to die when medical technology is available to sustain her life.
That puts them at odds with public opinion surveys conducted over the weekend, which found a majority of Americans opposed federal intervention in the Schiavo case…
Who offers a better sense of the public pulse?
I would be interested to learn the results of a poll that asked respondents: Do you favor starving a defenseless, brain-damaged woman to death?
![[SMMMHDH]](http://www.mgilleland.com/music/smmmhdh.png){kind=small}
