Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?
> Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri
> Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by
> and dehydration,
That's a strawman. The man doesn't want to have his wife starve and
dehydrate so much as put her out of that miserable condition. She'll
starve and dehydrate because the *State* would rather have a woman in
that condition dehydrate than put a lethal injection in her to kill her
quickly and with little pain. It's pretty amazing when the government,
in all it's "wisdom", would kill convicted criminals relatively
painlessly while allowing a woman who's done nothing wrong suffer for
six or seven days as she dehydrates.
>because (according to him) she once said that "she wouldn't
> want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state).
He'd know better than any of us. I know *I* personally would rather
die than "live" in that condition (and it's only artificial life
because without serious medical attention, she'd have died 15 years
> Had she left a living
> will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on
> testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she
would not want
> to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life
It's not hard to believe she would say something like that. Nearly
everyone I know would rather be dead than in her condition. Just
because medical science can keep a person alive doesn't mean they
should. That's why terminal cancer patients (like my father and
grandmother years ago) sign DNR orders and refuse to be put on such
equipment. They even decided that they wouldn't spend the last few
months of their lives in a hospital, but rather at home under hospice
care. Both died at home on their own terms.
> The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be
> well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her
"execution" in one
> to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
Well, removing her tube is a form of execution. It's far harsher than
convicts on death row get (many are innocent, yes, but that's another
topic entirely). If the State determines to pull her tube out, I can't
see why they wouldn't make her passing easier for her by giving her a
lethal injection. The blood is already on their hands.
> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
Like most cases. Heck, Law is often evil in it's heart.
> alignment should prevail, and why?
Good obviously, because law is evil and has only as much legitimacy as
the thugs who "enforce" it say it does.
> How would you differentiate a Lawful Good
> character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a
> character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an
> case) injust law being applied?
> There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...
Considering how D&D alignments have little to do with real life (it's
just a game), of course neutrality (based on the D&D model) has its
advantages. In the D&D universe, Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are absolutes
which exist. There are purely evil creatures as well as purely good
ones. I've never seen a case like that in the real world.