This is a very important issue as it strikes at the core of who we are as a free people. Free civilizations are in a constant quest for what can only be described as the good life. Through assiduous deliberation we discuss the relationships between our positive institutions and the ethical paradigms upon which principles they should naturally rest for the betterment of society on a whole. This is the essence of democracy. When glaring, sometimes horrific (slavery, abortion, genocide, assisted suicide, etc) , inconsistencies call to test the applications upon which our positivism is exercised reexaminations of the procedures and the paradigms themselves are necessary. Terri Shiavo severely mentally handicapped after suffering a massive heart attack lies living in a Florida hospital bed, eyes wide open, breathing, smiling and reacting to the world in which we live. At the request of her legal guardian- her husband-who has a vested interest in her death- her feeding tube is going to be removed. Her death by dehydration is going to take 10- 14 days. See will experience nose bleeds, cracked lips, spasms, possible seizures and vomitting until she expires after weeks of starvation. Her husband claims this was her wish should she ever be afflicted with such a condition. But was she in any positon to lay claim to that desire without presently residing in that particular condition? Have you never wished something but changed your mind later when in a different position? Is our society actually better off directly terminating the lives of individuals who have other love ones who would eagerly care for them? Are not Floridas present procedures inadequet in dealing with such a horrible yet naturally complex situation? What about her poor family who wants custody of her and in an attempt to nurture her back to health? Do we not feel for them? Shouldn't they have a say? Is a just society one that forces them to sit by while their daughter and sister dies of dehydration? Think about it. There are justifiable claims that mass murders shouldnt be put to death through a much more efficient state procedure yet we are going to put to death by starvation an innocent girl for having a heart attack? We are a society that understands children cannot make up their minds for themselves as they are not familiarized with the complexities of the real world- our laws protect them in such a manner. Is our society better served by starving a girl to death who laid claim to a position with which she was not familiar? In the end we need to determine if our society is better off procedurally respecting any claim-even death or promoting a culture of life and structures its institutions upon its preservation. I pray it is the latter.