|
No edit summary
|
|
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
'''Comments from Anythingyouwant''' |
'''Comments from Anythingyouwant''' |
||
*I got less than ten words into this article before running into problems. Here's how it currently starts: "The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case....." This is a very problematic way to start the article. According to ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=nMYTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA150 Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health Care]'', p. 150, by Banaszak-Holl et al. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), "Whereas [[Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health|Cruzan]] was framed as a right to die case, Schiavo was framed as a right to life case, or a contest between the right to live and the right to die...." What entitles us to re-frame it? Perhaps the most accurate way to look at the Schiavo case is as a case about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, and in favor of a spouse versus parents. Just starting out by labeling it as a "right to die" case implies from the outset that it was about whether Schiavo should be able to exercise her right to die, which is, uh, not quite neutral IMHO, and an oversimplification also.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC) |
*I got less than ten words into this article before running into problems. Here's how it currently starts: "The Terri Schiavo case was a right-to-die legal case....." This is a very problematic way to start the article. According to ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=nMYTDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA150 Social Movements and the Transformation of American Health Care]'', p. 150, by Banaszak-Holl et al. (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010), "Whereas [[Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health|Cruzan]] was framed as a right to die case, Schiavo was framed as a right to life case, or a contest between the right to live and the right to die...." What entitles us to re-frame it? Perhaps the most accurate way to look at the Schiavo case is as a case about who gets to exercise the rights of life and death for a person who cannot exercise them herself, and whether disagreement among family members should be resolved by governmental force in favor of life versus death, and in favor of a spouse versus parents. Just starting out by labeling it as a "right to die" case implies from the outset that it was about whether Schiavo should be able to exercise her right to die, which is, uh, not quite neutral IMHO, and an oversimplification also.[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] ([[User talk:Anythingyouwant|talk]]) 02:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
**Would it be enough to just call it a "legal case", and then lay out the basics? |
**Would it be enough to just call it a "legal case", and then lay out the basics? [[User:Ace-o-aces2|Ace-o-aces2]] ([[User talk:Ace-o-aces2|talk]]) 16:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC) |
||
| Toolbox |
|---|
This article is about the right-to-die legal case centering around Terri Schiavo that took place in the United States from 1990-2005. This was a major legal and political conflict. The article has been nominated several times before, but was rejected due to controversial nature of subject. Article has been listed as a good article for almost 5 years now, without and major revisions or edit wars. Time to reconsider. Ace-o-aces2 (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. - Dank (push to talk)
Comments from RL0919
Comments from Anythingyouwant
