Citizen's Rent 2005: Schiavo: A Right or a Requirement

In the screeds and rhetoric of the far right claiming to be advocates for Terri Schiavo, we frequently hear about her right to life. And she does have a right to life. But here's the rub - you can have a right and choose not to exercise it. But the far right screaming hordes have morphed the right to life into the requirement to live at all costs.

The civil rights movement was sparked by Rosa Parks' refusal to sit in the back of the bus. She claimed the right to sit at the front of the bus. She was right, she had that right. Does that mean she has to sit at the front of the bus?

Or consider the right to free speech. Because I have the right to say the most inflamatory thing I can think of, does that mean I must? Of course not.

Having a right doesn't mean you are compelled to exercise that right. The core question for the courts has been whether or not Terri Schiavo would choose to exercise her right to life, not whether or not that right exists. The conflict between her husband and parents is whether or not she would exercise that right. Her husband says no and has sufficient backing on that position to convince the courts that he is not imposing his views on his wife. She has a right that in this case, she made clear she wouldn't want to exercise. Debate all you want about the value of life inherent but recognize that you have no right to her life. It is hers and her will as testified to by her husband and best friend and others, is that this life by feeding tube is not one she chooses to continue. Her right, her choice. Not ours.