The media has been using this as an excuse to persecute http://tomdelay.house.gov/ Tom Delay – but they’re missing a key point. In the case of Delay’s father, the family agreed that withholding life support was the best thing to do, given the circumstances. Today, Delay is arguing in favor of maintaining life support (food and water, actually…) for Terry Schiavo, whose family does not agree that she would be better off dead.
Frankly, it doesn’t matter a bit which side you believe is correct in the Schiavo case. The situations are similar, but not the same. Charles Delay didn’t have a close family member vainly believing that he should be maintained in his debilitated state. Schiavo does. Similarity ended, case closed, get off this man’s case.
I’m sure the media moguls of the political left can find plenty of other reasons to hate-monger. This argument is a non-issue.
In 1988, Tom DeLay’s 65-year-old father, Charles DeLay, suffered catastrophic brain damage and went into a coma. He had no hope of recovery but evidently reacted when his son entered the room. Although Charles DeLay had no living will, his family concluded that he would be better off dead and wouldn’t want to go on living this way. Tom DeLay joined other family members in deciding to withhold dialysis. His father died.