The personal is not based on any legal premise/discussion/though.
I've been paying attention to the Schiavo furor recently (no links because you'd have to live under a rock to not hear of it) and have been naturally thinking a lot about the Castle Rock case. Something is seriously bothering me.
The nation is in a mild uproar about the prospect of one woman being taken off mechanical life support measures. Many people are concerned about the prospect of apparently 'killing' this person who, experts seem to agree, will never be conscious again.
Yet just today a bunch of people argued about whether or not a local government should take responsibility for its actions in failing to protect citizens whom the state specifically promised to protect. As a possible result of that failure, three little girls are dead. (And yes, I realize it's not proven that if they had acted, anything would be different.)
These were three girls who had their entire lives before them. Who knows what contributions to humanity they may have offered in their lives? Who knows what impact they might have had, what good they could have done? We'll never know because we've been denied that opportunity. This isn't to say that Schiavo wouldn't make contributions, as well, if she awoke. But the prospect seems unlikely at this point.
The city of Castle Rock wants to essentially turn this protection into a discretionary exercise, not just for that community, but for every community in the country. The same government which granted Federal jurisdiction for Schiavo's parents argued today - on the very same day - that no city should be liable for effectively removing state-granted protection on a whim.
Am I the only one who sees this fundamental unfairness here? Life and death, one in each hand, and which one the government deals you depends on . . . what? Whether it will have to pay damages?
