However, I think that the connection that you are making between Singer and Ms. Schiavo is not really supported. You can certainly read a connection into the case, but there really isn’t one. This case is about the right to accept or refuse medical care. And, it is a case about surrogates making a judgement about the wishes of a patient when they are incapable of making a decision. It is about the chain of surrogacy, and which relationship is closer than others. If Ms. Schiavo had a living will, where she specifically spelled out that she did not want live in a persistant vegetative state, there would be no case, no brouhaha, no publicity, no marches, no Jesse Jackson. The objection to this case to the perception that death is being imposed on Ms. Schiavo by an adulterous husband.

We as a community would be much better off spending our energy and moral outrage not on the specifics of this case, but at the underlying climate and law that defines food/water as medical intervention, not as essentials of life. We would be better off combating the perception that persistant vegetative state is not life, and that ending that life is a good thing. But I dont think that we want the Christian majority in the US defining what life is, and what life is worth saving and what isn’t. And if faced with the options of too much choice and not enough choice, as the Jewish minority it is better to have too much choice, and to make sure that we use those choices wisely. Certainly we must combat the viewpoint of the Peter Singers of the world, but we must choose the appropriate venues and battlefields, so that are views are seen clearly, and not confused with the views of others, or mixed in with other issues.