Reader WM has persuaded me to wade back in.

Derbyshire’s linguistic point does not bear scrutiny. To deny that what he wants is to have Terri Schiavo killed is precisely to “fool around with language.” Whether he considers his state of mind to be typical of those who say they want to kill someone is entirely beside the point. Derbyshire thinks it best that Mrs. Schiavo physical life end, and we have a word for that in English. There are arguments for killing Mrs. Schiavo–with which I, obviously, disagree–but those who advocate it should not require the rest of us to share their squeamishness.

Which brings us to another point. If we are to assume that Mrs. Schiavo is no longer alive, that she no longer feels anything, and that to end her physical life is not to commit any offense, then why is it “compassionate” to end her life? She doesn’t, on this assumption, feel any anguish at her life’s continuation. It is true that some people are made unhappy by it–the only obvious member of this category is her husband–but more people seem to be unhappy about her death. If, on the other hand, we are to assume that she does feel something, then all we have on the other side of the ledger is Derbyshire’s implausible arguendo claim that she probably wants to die. And we don’t generally think it compassionate to grant that wish to anyone who happens to have it.

As for the law: Derbyshire would have us give great weight to the vote of Florida’s legislature, accepted by Florida’s governor, to deny food and water in some cases. Andy McCarthy has pointed out the illogic of Derbyshire’s legal argument. (Whether that will have any effect on someone who has repudiated both logic and rhetoric is another matter.) But in any case, why should we heed that law, and ignore the law, passed by the legislature and signed by the governor, to save Mrs. Schiavo’s life? Derbyshire is trying to have it both ways here, as elsewhere.