On Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo

Some comments about the deaths of Pope John Paul II and Terri Schiavo in the same week:

When the pope suffered his last medical setback this past week, he decided he didn't want to go to the hospital for more treatment. He must have surmised that he was very close to the end of his life, and no longer wanted to suffer. He basically made a decision not to prolong his life unnecessarily. He invoked a right to die, and he did so on his terms.

Days before, Terri Schiavo died at the crux of a long battle over the right to die, and who should be the rightful custodian of her life. Schiavo, having no explicit legal wishes for her last will, could not voice those wishes in her vegetative state. So the decision was made for her.

I don't know how many others felt the same way, but I saw the pope's decision as fundamental in the right to life controversy.

If the pope should have the right to say he doesn't want another hospital stay when his life was about to end, does that not mean everyone implicitly has a similar right to die?

I don't mean to suggest that the pope's wishes equated with suicide, because that's debatable at best. What he clearly wanted, though, was to ease his suffering and that of his people. He chose to make a moral, personal decision. Death is a part of life, and the choice was his to make.

Pope John Paul II was significant even in the last act of his life.

A postscript:

In life and in death, Terri Schiavo's husband is her legal custodian. Say what you will about Michael Schiavo, but he is legally bound to his wife. Therefore, Terri's parents, however moral their wishes might be, had not the legal basis for assuming Terri's wishes. To be overly pedantic, when Terri was married, her parents did not contest her marriage to Michael, and were therefore bound to "forever hold their peace." Is not their interference in their marriage rights an inherently immoral act?

Los Anaheim Angels

The Freeway series against the Angels was televised Saturday and Sunday.

The Angels swept the series, which included a Friday game. Judging by the Dodgers' performance in the preseason this year, it looks like it will be a "rebuilding year" for them. Just what we expected, considering GM Paul DePodesta's off-season work, dismantling the best infield unit in the majors last year, and ignoring contract negotiations with MVP candidate Adrian Beltre.

The Dodgers looked so inept on Sunday that the team was booed several times. Vin Scully pointed out that the Dodgers had committed seven errors in the three game series.

Finally, I've arrived at a way to think of the Angels' name change. Mind you, I'm not completely against the change, but it's clearly too market-conscious. Anyway, I figure it's easier to refer to them as Los Anaheim Angels. Entirely accurate, too. That way, they can stay the L.A. Angels as long as they like, while staying an hour's drive from Los Angeles.

As a footnote, I don't believe I heard Vin Scully call the Angels by their preferred location name even once all weekend. It seems he calls them the Angels and nothing more. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but it appears that the change has yet to be publicly recognized by the Hall of Fame broadcaster.