I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory, insofar as and until it is seen to have attained its proper finality, which in the present case consists in providing nourishment to the patient and alleviation of his suffering.

However, is it necessary in all circumstances to have recourse to all possible remedies?

In the past, moralists replied that one is never obliged to use "extraordinary" means. This reply, which as a principle still holds good, is perhaps less clear today, by reason of the imprecision of the term and the rapid progress made in the treatment of sickness. Thus some people prefer to speak of "proportionate" and "disproportionate" means. In any case, it will be possible to make a correct judgment as to the means by studying the type of treatment to be used, its degree of complexity or risk, its cost and the possibilities of using it, and comparing these elements with the result that can be expected, taking into account the state of the sick person and his or her physical and moral resources.

In order to facilitate the application of these general principles, the following clarifications can be added:

If there are no other sufficient remedies, it is permitted, with the patient's consent, to have recourse to the means provided by the most advanced medical techniques, even if these means are still at the experimental stage and are not without a certain risk. By accepting them, the patient can even show generosity in the service of humanity.

It is also permitted, with the patient's consent, to interrupt these means, where the results fall short of expectations. But for such a decision to be made, account will have to be taken of the reasonable wishes of the patient and the patient's family, as also of the advice of the doctors who are specially competent in the matter. The latter may in particular judge that the investment in instruments and personnel is disproportionate to the results foreseen; they may also judge that the techniques applied impose on the patient strain or suffering out of proportion with the benefits which he or she may gain from such techniques.

It is also permissible to make do with the normal means that medicine can offer. Therefore one cannot impose on anyone the obligation to have recourse to a technique which is already in use but which carries a risk or is burdensome. Such a refusal is not the equivalent of suicide; on the contrary, it should be considered as an acceptance of the human condition, or a wish to avoid the application of a medical procedure disproportionate to the results that can be expected, or a desire not to impose excessive expense on the family or the community.

When inevitable death is imminent in spite of the means used, it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life, so long as the normal care due to the sick person in similar cases is not interrupted. In such circumstances the doctor has no reason to reproach himself with failing to help the person in danger.

Not long ago, I had a chance to see Rove speak to an audience of conservative activists down in Washington. The speech was as revealing for what it left out as for what it included. Not once did Rove proclaim the importance of reducing the size and sphere of Washington's purview. Not once did he echo Ronald Reagan's famous line — which codified a fundamental verity of modern Republicanism — that "government isn't the solution to our problems; government is our problem." Instead, Rove rejected the party's "reactionary" and "pessimistic" past, in which it stood idly by while "liberals were setting the pace of change and had the visionary goals." Now, he went on, the GOP has seized the "mantle of idealism," dedicating itself to "putting government on the side of progress and reform, modernization and greater freedom."

Inexplicably, the U.S. court system is determined to take Schiavo’s life. I say inexplicably because the courts have chosen to disregard the morality of life, the religious belief in life, the culture of life. Inexplicable because all Americans of faith believe that in situations like this we should, as President Bush has said, err on the side of life.

Why not consider the current debate within conservatism on the Shavio case as an indication of vitality rather than imminent demise? Conservatism has been "cracking up" for years now, along the libertarian/conservative divide, along the paleo/neo divide, along the religious/secular divide. Look at The Corner: reasoned arguments on either side of a topic that I think we can all admit is at least morally difficult. Do you see the same thing going on at DU? Or at The Nation?

I consider this a strength of American conservatism: we tend to be much more accommodating of ideological differences than the left. I know that statement will draw scoffs from many of your readers, and possibly from you. But consider: abortion. Who has a more diverse spectrum of opinions? Similarly Affirmative Action. Immigration? As counter-intuitive as it seems, I think conservatives in America can claim to be more accepting of diversity of opinions on each of these topics. Hell, even gay marriage. Some are for, some are against. It's all a glorious mess, and hopefully we'll muddle through and do some good along the way.

For over 30 years I have been a conservative on fiscal issues and a bit of a moderate on social ones. So Republicans were my party of choice. This episode with the Schiavo case has left me in despair for the party. If this continues, it may have the same effect that Radical Republicans had on the South after the Civil War, only this time it will be the urban areas that will resent this attack. For the past few years I thought that I could live with the religious right. No more. Who ever is closest to the center will get my vote.

"We are looking directly at the real face of contemporary Republicanism. Sane, moderate, thoughtful people are watching this circus and will not soon forget it." I couldn't agree with you more. I'm what one might call a moderate "swing voter." I came of age politically as a Democrat in the 90's, very supportive of Clinton's centrist policies and somewhat hardened as a partisan by what I regarded as the outrageous excesses of Republicans during the impeachment and preceding investigations. Having said that, I've always been a hawk on defense and have some fundamentally libertarian sensibilities that guide my views on domestic policy. I regard the traditional "liberal" worldview as one that can manifest itself in malignantly foolish ways at home and dangerously naive ways abroad.

After 9-11 I came to vigorously support the administration in the war against Islamist terrorism and supported the Iraq war as well. These two issues led me to seriously consider voting for President Bush. Particularly in the run-up to the Iraq war, my hostility to the far left element of the Democratic party and its apparently increasing prominence (see Michael Moore and his ilk) led me to really wonder whether someone like myself would be a better fit in the Republican party. As Howard Dean's campaign took off I came to view myself as a likely Bush voter. Ultimately, two things happened to change that vote. First, as evidence of the administration's inexcusable incompetence in carrying out regime change in Iraq mounted, I came to the conclusion that President Bush didn't deserve reelection as a matter of fundamental accountability. Second, the Democrats (for the 4th cycle in a row) wound up nominating an essentially moderate candidate. After concluding that Kerry was an acceptable alternative to Bush--specifically that a Kerry administration could be trusted with national security--I voted for him.

While I didn't regret my vote, in the months after the election my continuing aversion to some tenets of contemporary liberal thought (see the Larry Summers "controversy") led me to occasionally flirt with the idea of switching my allegiance, such as it is, to the Republican party. The Terri Schiavo fiasco has put an end to all that. This disgraceful episode has crystallized for me why I am much more a Democrat then a Republican. The reality simply is that moderates like me have much more influence in and, accordingly, are more at home in, the Democratic party. The Leftists couldn't even muster a majority of congressional Democrats to oppose the Iraq war--all but one Representative voted for the Afghan war. Yet the Theocons of the Republican right are able to call the Congress into a special session, pass an emergency bill and wake the President up in the middle of the night to sign it--all in the name of exalting an extremist religious belief over traditionally Republican principles of federalism, governmental restraint and family rights. All of this with only five, count them, five Republicans voting "No."

As a centrist Democrat friend of mine once said, "the extremists in my party make me laugh, the extremists in the Republican party make me cry."

"I don't know what transpired between Terri and her husband. All I know is Terri is alive. ... Unless she has specifically written instructions in her hand, with her signature, I don't care what her husband says."

True, there is an arguable federalism issue: whether taking the issue out of a state's jurisdiction is constitutional. But it pales in comparison with the moral issue.

I am not impressed by appeals to "federalism" to protect the decisions of state court judges who usurp the authority of democratically constituted state legislative bodies by interpreting statutes beyond recognition or by invalidating state laws or the actions of state officials in the absence of any remotely plausible argument rooted in the text, logic, structure, or historical understanding of the state or federal constitution. The fact is that, under color of law, Michael Schiavo is seeking to deprive Terri of sustenance because of her disability. Under federal civil-rights statutes, this raises a substantial issue. It cannot be waved away by invoking states' rights.

[W]hat's wrong with a little narrowcasting, anyway? Social life is a difficult thing -- fraught with awkwardness, quirky taboos, the fear of rejection, and the discomfort of confrontation. The unfamiliar and the unexpected can stimulate but they can also exasperate -- and exacerbate ill will. We surround ourselves with the familiar and unthreatening precisely because ordinary life is threatening enough, even within the confines of the familiar. To be sure, a select few will always strive to broaden their cultural horizons -- but then, a belief in the value of broadened cultural horizons is itself a cultural position, and a surprisingly comfortable one at that.
The question is not whether we will narrowcast our lives. The question is how to create a broadcast society out of narrowcast people.

Under any set of marriage laws, the fit between the laws' purpose and the eligibility criteria they establish will be somewhat loose. Are the laws there to promote loving relationships? Well, the law doesn't require that the partners in a marriage love each other. Do they promote the formation of stable households where the partners look out for each other? Well, not every married couple lives together, and it is an "obvious social reality" that not every cohabiting couple is married. This kind of pseudo-rationalism would undermine any marriage law at all.

We can easily see why some people are physically disqualified for military service, but it is much harder to see why the fact of private consensual sex between adult citizens disqualifies them from military service. What democratic principle justifies this discrimination?
The law barring gay military service imposes private religious and moral commitment through the instrument of public law. Gays and lesbians are American citizens, and many are silently serving in our military now as they have in all of our wars. The war in Iraq highlights the shortsightedness of discharging Arabic linguists who happen to be gay. But far worse than this failure in reasoning is the more general democratic failure of refusing full citizenship to able and willing citizens making personal choices the majority does not like.

Two great things have happened in Beirut recently. First the opposition came out on the streets for a series of peaceful rallies. Then on Tuesday Hizbollah came out with peaceful rallies. Many people are treating the latter as setbacks for democracy. But in reality, they are democracy. It's not only the people who we agree with who get to vote and mobilize. It's everybody. In the Arab world there are going to be plenty of anti-American parties. If these parties' first instinct is to try to rally public opinion and not unleash armies, that's great. This is in a country where people used to kill each other, over such things, remember. Now they are rallying. This is part of what Wolfowitz was working for.

"[T]he policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States."

1. "Tragically, this juvenile reasoning partially accounts for the apparent upsurge in HIV infections among gay males -- and the emergence of a virulent new strain that has health officials plenty worried." 2. "Unprotected sex is reckless, and unprotected sex between gays who are already HIV-positive will sooner or later produce a super strain of the disease." 3. "The fact remains that a portion of the gay population -- maybe 20 percent, Kaiser estimates -- conducts itself in ways that are not only reckless but just plain disgusting."

"I think it's obvious that I based much of what I wrote on the findings of the New York City medical authorities. As for the rest, it comes from Kaiser, as I made clear. The sentiments about bath house sex and such are strictly my own."

"First off, I'm a huge admirer of your writing on gay issues. You're the very rare heterosexual man who actually gives a damn and writes as if we are equal human beings and citizens. Second, you are absolutely right that gay men have a responsibility to protect themselves and others from HIV."

I think even the fiercest critics of president Bush's handling of the post-liberation phase in Iraq will still be thrilled at what appears to me to be glacial but important shifts in the right direction in the region."

Gay men employ the same strategies for navigating as women - using landmarks to find their way around - a new study suggests.
But they also use the strategies typically used by straight men, such as using compass directions and distances. In contrast, gay women read maps just like straight women, reveals the study of 80 heterosexual and homosexual men and women.
"Gay men adopt male and female strategies. Therefore their brains are a sexual mosaic," explains Qazi Rahman, a psychobiologist who led the study at the University of East London, UK. "It's not simply that lesbians have men's brains and gay men have women's brains."