Question

The Terry Schiavo case dominated the media for weeks in the final stages of the legal case against her husband and his desire to terminate her life, with him suggesting she would not want to live with her condition. Some suggest that this case resulted in the legislature (i.e. government) determining the morality of this case. Do you think the government intervened for moral or legal purposes? Do you think the government should have been involved in this case at all? Why or why not?

Answer 1

In the description box section, the overview including its query is listed.

Step-by-step explanation:

• Mercy killing "becomes" this same activity of easily and quickly bringing a human or animal towards death as well as causing themselves to die by withdrawing hospital services, usually due to some kind of debilitating and incurable illness. "Euthanasia was therefore known as" mercy killing.
• Somewhere between, the authorities made the right decision to interfere. Terry would be a member of the community and is largely accountable to all people in the government. Does the state want to see whether the climate has used the best tools for healing? There is something else about the air or Terry will do a better remedy to heal it. And if that's there, perhaps Terry should be handled better.