Under an entry of the same title, Greg Swann comes forth with an argument that’s counter to mine (here and here) and other similar arguments. Greg knows that I take everything he writes very seriously, as well I do this piece. But, this time, I have to say that I think he’s wrong. To be clear, I don’t think anyone is wrong to prefer that Terri Schiavo remain incapacitated as she’s been for 15 years. I do think it’s wrong, however, for those with the authority and responsibility, to not respect her wishes and to carry them out. Failing explicit knowledge of precisely what her wishes were or would have been in this situation, then I think it’s wrong for anyone to prevent her husband from carrying out his wishes in the matter. I am stoutly opposed to "sanctioned" violence in any form, with the only exception being where to fail to act with immediate force will result in even greater injury. That’s a different formulation than the standard non-initiation of force principle I’m familiar with. I confess that I’ve not seen it before, but I think I get it. What this does is deliver the classic principle of not...