I think you are misjudging the Schindler's position. They do not expect that Terry, given proper therapy, would ever make a recovery even to the point of living more or less independently. It isn't her recovery they are working towards, it is her survival. Even in her sadly diminished state, Terry is still a person, and whatever you may think of the quality of her life, it is just that: her life. Like most parents, the Schindlers are trying to protect their daughter.

We've heard very little about the activities of the disabled communities in fighting the way this case has come down. They are rightly terrified that we're on the slippery slope -- one day it's Terry Schiavo's feeding tube that's removed, the next day, it will be theirs. Some court will decide, or allow someone else with vested interests elsewhere to decide, whether or not their lives have any value. It is not such a big step from what we are seeing with Terry.

Judge Greer's decision to accept hearsay evidence in a life-and-death situation is inexplicable to me, as is the judicial block's refusal to consider even the idea that Greer's initial findings of fact -- still the only findings ever done in this case -- may have been incomplete or in error.

Procedurally, the trials etc have all been fine, and no judge had reason to strike Greer's findings of fact.

IMO it is bad lawyering that is killing Terry. Congress's (eminently constitutional) law directing the courts to reconsider the case was sloppily written, and allowed the fed courts to weasel out of the de novo review that was clearly Congress's intent. The Schindler's lawyers have been equally inept at presenting new evidence or arguing otherwise for a new finding of fact.

It's pathetic, and tragic, and indeed, no one wins.

"If the time comes for me"

Ah, but how will you know when it is time?

"I find their hope for their daughter's recover to be sad and misguided."

1) There is some evidence that given therapy she could improve somewhat.
2) For them, this is not about whether she recovers. They love her the way she is.

"I do see that needless suffering is all that Terry (if there's any Terry left in there at all) has to look forward to."

You're projecting. You don't know if she was "suffering" (while being fed and turned and minimally taken care of) or not.

One reason this case is really a disability rights case is because able-bodied people have been projecting right and left about how THEY would feel if blah blah blah. People with disabilities know that others always assume their lives are much worse than they are.

Finally, there are so many horror stories about misdiagnosis of PVS.

"Is the Florida law just? Certainly, it isn't to the Schindlers."

Well, I wouldn't call a law "just" that condemns someone to death on the hearsay of one person who has a conflict of interest.

As one blogger put it, Michael can always find another wife. The Schindlers can't find another daughter.

(I have many links supporting everything I wrote but they are scattered over 8-10 posts so I'm not going to stick them in here, but you;re welcome to read my posts.)

Interesting, Joan and I posted at almost exactly the same time and said almost exactly the same thing.

Two replies, first to Joan.

You wrote, and I think this is the crux of your comment: "Like most parents, the Schindlers are trying to protect their daughter."

I'm sure they are. I'm very sure of it. My hope for me is that had I not made a living will, someone would love me enough to end my misery. But, again, that's my hope for me. I disagree with the Schindlers, but as I said in my essay, I do not begrudge them their choice.

What I fear is that if the Schindler's "supporters" win, then my living will -- again, the slippery slope -- might someday become compromised.

And I put "supporters" in scare quotes because, frankly, I don't trust the motives of most of them. Before you go off on me, I'd put the same scare quotes around the "supporters" of Michael Shiavo.

Now I'll reply to Judith.

You wrote, "Ah, but how will you know when it is time?" I've laid out the conditions in my living will. Having done so, I hope to spare my family the agony of having to make the decision themselves. I also hope to spare any disagreements. My will shall remain paramount, even in death (or not-quite-death).

You also wrote:

1) There is some evidence that given therapy she could improve somewhat. 2) For them, this is not about whether she recovers. They love her the way she is.

I do not wish to improve "somewhat." I wish to eat on my on, or not at all. Again, this is spelled out in my will.

I do not wish to be loved in that condition. I wish to be remembered as a full human being.

But as I wrote to Joan, the Schindlers are free to make up their own minds.

We could have all been spared this - Terry included - had she made a living will. She didn't. And so now she's a test case for euthanasia enthusiasts on one side, and life-at-any-cost enthusiasts on the other.

None of which changes the fact that a young girl will either die horribly, or live horribly.

And all of which is a bit like arguing the "bright side" of the Holocaust: We're all more aware now of the evils of genocide.

Screw that. There's no good here. There are no winners.

This one is pretty good on the tendency to project.

If you want the benefits of citizenship, then act like a citizen, which includes not leaving it to some judge to devine what your desires were, based upon somebody else's recollections of what you once said. My uneasiness with this outcome is that in the face of vague evidence, the Florida legislature, via a judge they in turn vested power in, has concentrated the power of life and death over a noncommunicative citizen in one other citizen, her husband. I think marrriage is a fine thing, but I don't think anyone should have such power over another citizen who hasn't clearly and definitively expressed her desires, which means in documentary form, either in writing, or electronically.

Stephen, how well put and I concur completely. There indeed are no winners. All parties lose and we are all lessened by its conclusion.

I concur in that all parties must run over Terri's corpse. This is the ultimate sadness and I weep for all parties concerned.

This isn't a case of life and death, at least not as far as the law is concerned. The Question at hand is: Given a patient who cannot express her own wishes regarding care who will be empowered to make those decisions? Ideally everyone would make their wishes known prior to becoming incapacitated, but as this case demonstrates not everyone has that foresight, so what is the default position? My understanding of Florida law is that the spouse has that power. Judge Greer's decision wasn't that Mrs. Sciavo wanted to die it's that Mr Sciavo wasn't acting counter to her best interests. What her parents needed to prove was that Terri had expressed wishes to be kept alive at all costs, which they failed to do.

The power of guardianship must be include the ability to end the life. What if Terri's husband wanted, contrary to her parent's wishes, to attempt a experimental procedure that had a 50% chance of recovery, and a 20% chance of killing her? What if the odds were reversed? The only way out of these hypothetical traps is to state THIS person is empowered to make ALL decisions regarding the patient's care.

In order to be just the law must be consistant. We cannot ascribe guardianship based on what some judge considers "best interest". To do so would eliminate any ability to plan, I know who guardianship would default to if I were incapacitated and I could make other arraingements if I didn't like the result.

This is why the de novo review demanded by Congress was wrong. It basically told the judiciary to keep reinterpreting the law until it got the "right answer" as defined by the politics of the day.

TO: Stephen Green
RE: Feeling Moribund Tonight, You Are

"You loser." -- Stephen Green

Actually, I think God decides who wins and who loses. I'll call no one such, myself. But that's just me and my understanding.

However....I would not care to be Michael when he has to account for himself. [Note: I got problems enough of my own.]

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[If Yoda, in Force is so strong. How come Yoda in proper order words cannot put?]

TO: MMDuece
RE: Wrong. That's Right.

"This is why the de novo review demanded by Congress was wrong. It basically told the judiciary to keep reinterpreting the law until it got the "right answer" as defined by the politics of the day." -- MMDuece

Considering that the judiciary has been making law (the legislature's business) for so long now, i.e., judicial activism, it's not difficult to see where the legislatures should not try the same thing.

And when the mess is finally too bad to be reconciled.....maybe we'll get back to the way it was intended; legislatures make law, judges apply it.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

Actually, there is some good coming out of this, and some winners too. It (and they) are the people who did not have a living will prior to all this mess who have woken up to the need to go ahead and have one made up.

Life is rare in this universe. It should be preserved at every turn. Due to the unknowns of Terri's wishes should we not side upon life?

or, is death more convenient and tiddy.

If you want a fairly concise version of the entire case....by one of the few people who has actually read and participated in it.....check this Olbermann interview of Jay Wolfson, PhD, JD who served Gov Jeb Bush as the Guardian ad litem for Terri...

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7012320/

It gives the husband a much more human face despite the fact he comes off much less caring in the news....it also settles several of the created "facts" about Terri's responses, etc.

Duke of DeLand

I like South Park's take on it.

Two little points:

"Offhand comment to one person": Stephen, you haven't read the court record have you? You haven't even read the brief history of the case in the guardian ad litem report either, have you? Here's the URL to the latter, good stuff starts on page 7:

http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/WolfsonReport.pdf

Michael is a cad? Again, read the GAD report and then read Andrew Sullivan's alternative summary of the facts here:

http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20050326

Michael is not telegenic perhaps, but he is not a cad.

The court record has this going for it: all the information in it was vetted by witnesses testifying under oath and subject to cross examination. The earlier court record has the additional advantage that an insurance company with experienced investigators were involved and had millions of dollars at risk motivating them to get at the truth.

Excellent post, as usual....

Couldn't have said it better myself.

The best thing now would be if everyone --- FOX, CNN, MSNBC, and the protesters on both sides --- just went home and let Terri Schiavo have the peaceful, dignified death she deserves as a human being. I doubt that will happen, though.

As Steve said in a comment above, "...people who did not have a living will prior to all this mess who have woken up to the need to go ahead and have one made up."

My mother and her FIVE sisters are coming to stay with us for a week in May. The youngest of them is now 70 and they have all decided that one of the evenings during their stay is going to be "Living Will Night." My cousin has ordered a kit with copies of living wills and an instructional DVD, so we will do this as a family.

Steven, you're right. There are losers all around this issue.

One loser you miss, however, is the Law itself. Our Laws say how we might execute the most vile murderer and yet still not be "Cruel and Unusual". One part of this process is a ceremonial Last Meal. Were someone with an ailing pet choose to withold food and water to euthanize that pet, instead of putting the pet down compassionately, that person should expect to go to jail. It is a travesty that the best this same Law says we can do for Terri is exactly this.

I hope that after Terri dies, we begin to re-examine euthanisia. We need to ask ourselves: Who makes the decision? What information is relevant to that decision? What is the most humane method to carry out the decision? I'm sure there are other questions, and everyone will have a different opinion. Dr. Kervorkian was a somewhat ghoulish character, but maybe he did raise some questions we ought to attempt to answer.

These are all soul-searching questions. It will take much reflection to come up with correct answers, both as individuals and as a society.

Well written, and well expressed.

I strongly feel that Michael Schiavo should have no rights in the case, though. Once you've moved on and had kids with someone else, the law ought to take away any spousal rights you have with the previous person.

I notice a few details are still wrong in a lot of poster's minds -- Judge Greer did not rely solely on Michael Schiavo's testimony with regard to Terri's wishes. Two of her siblings also gave testimony that corroborated his.

In any event, I think the Florida law makes it too easy for a judge acting as surrogate to rule in favor of death when a patient's wishes aren't known, and I think that law should be changed.

In fact, given that this case has had a high profile in Florida for a couple of years, I wonder why the Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature down there hasn't changed the law yet.

Maybe it can't affect Terri Schiavo, but there are 17 million other people in Florida to whom the state government has a responsibility.

Instead, they've been trying to pass ex post facto laws that have no chance of standing up, then washing their hands when those don't work.

I am so glad that someone posted the link to abstractappeal.com. If you read the actual court papers you find out that no less than 5 people heard Terri express on at least two different occasions (both funerals of family members) that she did not want to "live like that". The court did not just take Michael's word for it. In addition, he worked for four years trying to find a treatment that would help her.

Here is a link to a site comparing Terri's CT scan with that of a normal brain, along with an analysis:

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/03/20/regarding-the-cat-scan-of-terri-schiavos-brain/

People who want an MRI done don't seem to understand that one of the procedures done to try to help Terri involved an implant in her brain - she would have to undergo surgery to remove the implant prior to having the MRI.

There seem to be many people on both sides of the issue who are willing to vilify those that disagree with them. The reality is that Michael Schiavo worked for years to try to bring his wife back. When he became convinced that she wasn't able to come back he went to court and the court determined that, based upon 5 witness accounts, Terri would not want to be sustained artificially.

Her parents love her very much, but if you read the Guardian Ad Litem's report they also said that if she developed diabetes and had to have her limbs amputated they would still be fighting Michael to keep the feeding tubes in.

I cannot properly express how that makes me feel.

This case has been reviewed over 22 times by different judicial authorities. NOT ONE has agreed with the parents. And as far as I can tell, no one in the commentariat has actually taken the time to read the court papers or the findings of either of the Guardian Ad Litems. There were two, you know.

All in all, it's a very sad case for everyone involved. But I totally agree with Neal Boortz's column on townhall.com - she has earned the right to die.

Well, bless her heart, she's gone now.

Anyone else feel queasy?

Davette, if you think that the recollections of years-old conversations are clear and convincing evidence of someone's desires, well, I don't want you sitting in a jury box for anyone. If we wish to have judges simply guess as to what somebody wanted, fine, have the honesty to advocate that. Please don't pretend, however, that clear and convincing evidence of this woman's desires has been presented. That is simply false.

So much of Stephen's original post rings true. I cannot add any additional wisdom on the issue of how to make your wishes known and who best to carry them out.
But I have an observation which in so many ways underscores the sadness of all this.
Terri's blood relatives were apparently barred from he room as she died. Her brother claims he was ordered removed from her room at midnight (the order coming from Michael).
The last several years have been beyond acrimonious between Michael and Terri's blood relatives. Michael had an opportunity to (at least for a moment) put rancor aside and offer some degree of healing by allowing (if not offering) her family the chance to be at her side when she died. He denied them that last opportunity to say goodbye. That last act of spite/hatred/anger/whatever was unforgivable.

All those above who think that a living will is the last word on this need to think again. The courts can and will do whatever they want, regardless of what your flimsy piece of paper says. If they'll do what they want under the harsh light of national attention, think what they'll do when the cameras aren't turned on.

"My understanding of Florida law is that the spouse has that power. Judge Greer's decision wasn't that Mrs. Sciavo wanted to die it's that Mr Sciavo wasn't acting counter to her best interests. What her parents needed to prove was that Terri had expressed wishes to be kept alive at all costs, which they failed to do."

MMDeuce -- I don't believe that's a correct summary of the Florida law. (1) The spouse, as guardian, does not have the power to decide. The spouse does have the power to petition the court for a determination based on the patient's wishes. That determination can include hearsay testimony in the absence of a living will. (2) Terri's parents didn't need to prove anything. The burden was on Michael to prove by "clear and convincing evidence" (which is a burden of proof falling somewhere in between the usual civil "preponderance of the evidence" standard and the usual criminal "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard) that removal of the tube was what she would want.

I've said in comments on other blogs, under the Florida statutory scheme, the Schindler's lose, period. But I think it's a lousy law.

Here's one reason (but not the only reason) why. The case could by chance have been assigned to another judge. That judge could have taken a more strict view of the concept of "clear and convincing evidence" (IMO, J. Greer's interpretation of clear and convincing is pretty darned loose) and would have come out the other way. Take the same fight all the way up to the Supreme Court with the same deference for findings of fact, and the tube would still be in. Life and death shouldn't be so dependent on luck of the draw in judicial assignment.

Stated more concisely, I agree with Will Allen.

...I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I think a man who takes up with a mistress and has two bastard children with her is a "cad"-at the very least-and what a great gal she must be! There are people in this world who can "control their urges"-so he should have divorced Terri first before leaving her like this. I find it so interesting that so many people seemingly have no problem with his behavior in that matter--glad I'm not married to them (I'd be AIDS testing every week!)

How fucking creepy is Micheals lawyer?--that Felos guy.

He's one of those Kevorkinator guys that just likes death and watching people die: "She is more beautiful than ever now that she is dying" Silence of the Lambs type stuff....

Furthermore, I'm queasy that the whole thing has a lie at its root:

"I don't want to suffer like her, please let me die; she isn't suffering at all because she has no awareness"

If there is no one there to feel the pain of starvation, then there is no one there to suffer, so what's it hurt to keep feeding it?

But, there is one very happy ending to this: all the weird old peace and love hippies secretly want to die....

And I want to kill them.

"Michael Shiavo seems like a cad. ... What he looks like to me is someone who would rather be seen as a tragic widower than a man who divorced his sick wife."

Or he's a guy that stayed married in order to carry out the wishes of the woman he loved, instead of taking the easy way out by divorcing her and letting her parents deal with it.

Yeah, I wish I could have pulled the plug on my ex instead of divorcing her. She was a total bitch and I would have saved a lot of money....

Hopeless hope? I'm not familiar with it. One thing I'm sure of is that it is making me sick to my stomach, as a mother, to think that Michael Schiavo and his lawyers created a scenario whereby a daughter's parents and siblings were forced to stand by and watch her starve to death and die of thirst.

Felos!!!?

Anyone watching the news conference with the lawyer? He's describing Terri's condition over the last few hours.

This seems obscene to me.

"The death process"

He seems extremely creepy.

Well-said, Stephen.

I applaud you for making your wishes known and putting them in writing. You don't know what a kindness you're doing for your family.

I've seen this happen many times profesionally (I am a physician). There's no tougher place to be than burying your child, or being asked to make that decision to withdraw care. It's an uncomfortable topic, but when that very difficult time comes, your decision to step to the plate legally will do more than you'll ever know for your family.

Everybody dies. Fortunately, in this modern day paradigm of non-paternalistic, patient-centric medicine, you can actually choose your own treatments and options. Chemo, no chemo, radiation, no radiation. It's taken 30 years of right-to-die cases and legislation to empower individuals to draw their own line, but a competent patient has the legal ability to say "enough."

Educated patients who have planned ahead are a pleasure to treat, and a blessing to their family.

Incidently, you may want to designate someone as a Durable Power of Attorney for Healthcare.. it will give your physicians someone to go to, should there be any questions.

"Davette, if you think that the recollections of years-old conversations are clear and convincing evidence of someone's desires, well, I don't want you sitting in a jury box for anyone."

Will: I would gladly avoid having that experience again – the jury box, that is. The one and only time I served the prosecution DID NOT present their case well. As it was, reasonable doubt existed as to the intentions of the perpetrator and he got off with a lesser charge. A little more attention to detail by the prosecutor and it could have been a murder one conviction. Consensus of all on the panel

"If we wish to have judges simply guess as to what somebody wanted, fine, have the honesty to advocate that. Please don't pretend, however, that clear and convincing evidence of this woman's desires has been presented. That is simply false"

For some reason I think that if five of my friends, including my husband and best friend, got on the stand and testified that I would not want to live in such a state it should be considered clear and convincing evidence. Actually, in my case, you are more likely to find a multitude as I am chronically unable to keep my opinions to myself. I would also make a very good Fair Witness.

TO: Ken McCracken
RE: Yeah...

"Anyone else feel queasy?' -- Ken McCracken

...I've got a 'bad feeling' about the way the courts handled the matter.

We're still pretty much ignorant of all the facts in the case. For example, someone above commented that the 'husband' has had children by another woman since Terri's 'accident'.

Seems to me that there are a LOT of facts that some people don't want us to know.

In the end, I wouldn't stand in Michael's shoes for a heartbeat.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[What they tell you may be important. What they DON'T tell you can be vital.]

Well, Davette, that's unfortunate, because people's memories of conversations that took place years earlier simply are not empirically accurate. People regularly convert their desires and emotions into memories, or have them shape their memories. If somebody finds this woman's condition to be grotesque, they are very likely to "remember" a conversation in which the woman expressed views in that manner. Human memory is simply an inaccurate recorder of events; that is why people write things down and have it notarized.

I filled out my die with dignity thingy, came to the conclusion it would be best to pull the plug since everyone keeps saying how 'they wouldn't want to live that way' I figured since nobody else thought my life would be worth anything I decided to save them from any miserable suffering my existence might bring to them.

However, my sub-conscious keeps nagging at me with obnoxious little thoughts....what if I was wrong to allow myself to be un-plugged. Whenever you enter a hospital these days, the first thing asked of you is whether you have a living will or not. My fear is that once hospital administrators and doctors find out you agree to have your plug pulled, that will diminish any motivation to treat you.

I am learning a valuable lesson from my own mother who had been diagnosed terminal....she refused to accept her diagnosis as a given death sentance and is to this day still alive after four and a half years, living independently as is her wish. Even the tumors in her brain have actually diminished.

I debated this back and forth numerous times and have decided to change my living will to 'take every possible means available to save my life' because no one, not the doctors, family members, judges can predict the future.

So, I have decided for myself to embrace the miracle of life instead of bowing to the power of death.

One last thing, I am struck at how our sophisticated and knowledgable society has adopted such a narrow-minded view to that which is defined as Life. Baby in the womb is just a bunch of cells, while severly brain-damaged humans are hollow bodies?

Who will be the next definition our society deems Lifeless?

Sorry, I should have written sentence and knowledgeable (my brain is a little off please don't kill me)

TO: susan
RE: Who's Next?

"Who will be the next definition our society deems Lifeless?" -- susan

It all depends, now, upon who can get the most judges appointed.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[No wonder their robes are 'black'.]

P.S. The way things are going, they'll be the next Black Death.

Will:

I understand that each and every one of us views the past through the prism of our individual experience. Just because our feelings and emotions color our memories doesn’t mean that we cannot remember the gist of past conversations. Even if the actual verbiage escapes us. Again, there were five people who, on two separate occasions (funerals of family members) remembered Terri saying that she would not want to live in that condition.

I know that my mother would want the tube pulled. My uncle wouldn’t. The conversation was very long and spirited. If either of them were to be in the same situation as Terri I would be more than happy to take the stand and let the world know what they said. This isn’t because of my personal beliefs, but because it is WHAT THEY WANT. I disagree with my uncle (like I said, it was a very spirited conversation) but I would fight for his right of self-determination.

Most people don’t think that they’ll be in that situation. Most people tend to assume that they will pass in old age. Terri was, what, twenty-three? when she had her heart attack. I know I didn’t have a living will at that age – I thought I’d live forever. And even if I didn’t, I never considered the possibility of being in Terri’s shoes.

I think that this is one of those things that we are going to have to agree to disagree on.

"I notice a few details are still wrong in a lot of poster's minds -- Judge Greer did not rely solely on Michael Schiavo's testimony with regard to Terri's wishes. Two of her siblings also gave testimony that corroborated his."

For what it's worth, I believe this statement is wrong. Based on what I have read, it was Michael Schiavo, his brother and his sister-in-law who testified that Terri had expressed her wishes to them. No one from the Schindler family testified that Terri would want to be disconnected from life support.

As to whether or not Michael Schiavo is a cad, that is strictly in the eye of the beholder. Considering all that has gone on and adding in that he denied her family the right to stay with her in her dying moments, I know what my eyes behold.

Everybody keeps asking "Would you want to live this way?" Oddly enough most polls show that the majority of people would not. Why doesn't someone commission a poll "Would you like to die the way Terri just died?" I wonder what the results would be? In other news the judicial system works terrific. It just successfully (and lawfully, I might add) ordered a brain damaged woman's death by starvation and dehydration (sp?). Reminds me of that old doctor's joke, "The operation was a success, oh by the way, the patient died" For those of us who scream this was a private family matter with no place for the government, I am reminded of the wife with a bloody nose and broken arm telling the cops that they have no business interfering in a “private family disagreement” between herself and her husband. My wife (who is from China) said that this would not have been allowed to happen in China, that the Chinese Authorities would have stopped it. Apparently, heresay evidence from a less than disinterest husband (who was apparently following terri’s wishes by dehydrating and starving her, and shacking up with another woman and fathering a few bastard children) would be less than convincing in a Chinese court of law (hooray for America protector of life liberty and (at lease for mike) pursuit of happiness)

Ah, the "I got the gist of it" argument. Yes, Davette, we will have to agree to disagree, for your estimation of the accuracy of human memory is many times larger than mine. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people vehemently maintain the accuracy of their memories, in the face of indisputable physical evidence. They aren't lying, they truly believe their brains are incapable of recording events inaccurately.

"Would you like to die the way Terri died."

Would you support a law that would allow her to die quickly John, once the legal process has been followed to its end, as in her case........I didn't think so.

Will -- I'm pretty sure that could the Schindlers have found one persion to say that they heard Terri "wanted to live at any cost or in any state" at some funeral 5 years before she got sick neither they nor you would be so critical of witness testimony.

Mark Steyn

Yes I would, wbrom. I am very skeptical when anyone purports to remember an event or conversation accurately several years after the fact; that just ain't how human beings tick. My only contention about how this thing turned out is the lengths that people will go to in order to convince themselves that they "know" soemthing that they really don't "know". A judge heard some testimony regarding memories of conversations that took place years earlier, made a guess as to the accuracy of those memories, called it "clear and convincing evidence", and because he is vested with the authority of the state, a lot of people wrongly think that some sort of empirical examination has taken place.

Judge Greer's guess as to what this woman's wishes were has about as much empirical basis as my guess as to who will the NCAA basketball games this weekend, and if this the way it is going to be determined when a non-communicative citizen is to have the delivery of nutrition and water halted, we should just go ahead and state that we will allow a judge to hear what evidence is available, and vest him with the power to guess whether the citizen wanted it or not, instead of constructing a charade about "clear and convincing evidence", imbued with the authority of a judge.

Each Clown in this Circus has
their own definition of "Person",
which justifies their pursuit of
their own self-interest.

Convenient coincidence, no? :)

The Left/Right, Judical/Executive,
and Federal/State issues involved
account for the size of the fight.

Why do we need "modern medicine" ?

Can everybody just except that they are going to die ?

Stem cell research .. for what .. employment of researchers ?

Can everybody just except that they are going to die ?

Medicare .. who needs it ?

Can everybody just except that they are going to die ?

Viagra .. who needs it ?

Can everybody just except that they are going to die ?

Uh, Neo, it's "accept". And Google Aubrey de Grey.

re: Terri's remants:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7328639/

A Fair Witness wouldn't have dreamt of testifying to something s/he didn't actually see/hear/experience. ("What color is that barn?" "It's white on this side.") But at least s/he would have been trained to report it with eidetic accuracy. Sadly, there are no Fair Witnesses.

My position: the value of a human life is immutable. The utility of any given life may change, but a human being is always "fully human" regardless of what parts or functions they may be missing. I find other places to draw the line unsatisfactory because they too often require opinion, which may come from outside. As happened in this case.

Wow... so many assume that those who wanted Terri to live did so out of some ideal they chose to make her the symbol of... I think the great majority of people who supported not killing her did so because they saw the videos of her. That motivation led to argument in favor of saving her life. Not the other way around.

I was motivated because when I saw those videos I saw a person, and a personality, I was NOT motivated by some Christian ideal or other such crap. To me Green's post is just the result of someone assuming the very worst of people who disagree with him. Nobody is a loser for trying to do what they feel is the right thing, when they have no hope for personal gain. Green's post is smug, pretentious, cynical, world weary, and ugly.
Cheers!
Hark