I have been giving the Terri Schiavo situation quite a bit of thought as of late.

Ace has done a series of posts which I think are largely on the mark and make some pretty compelling and reasonable arguments. His main theme seems to be that Terri's "husband" (whom I call a HINO: Husband In Name Only) has a conflict of interest which is impairing his ability to be considered a reasonable guardian, and I have to agree. How else to explain the appalling lack of care for Terri? After reading about the neglect she has suffered, can anyone seriously doubt that this story would be reported much differently if Terri were, say, a ward of the State of Florida? If she were in a nursing home, the operator would be incarcerated, and rightfully so. Yet there seems to be little or no outrage over this.

And how to explain the Persian Bazaar-type diagnosis given by Dr. Cranford? This is a guy who seems to see PVS everywhere he turns, even in patients who can move around on their own. If Cranford is such an expert, why the resistance over having his conclusions evaluated and his defensiveness over his diagnosis?

Bottom line (and as Ace pointed out), this does not fit into the relatively neat cookie-cutter right-to-die concept (a concept I generally support, incidentally). It has to do with the scads and scads of reasonable doubt that permeates this case. Until there's a definite, non-slapdash diagnosis of PVS, I say we give the lady the benefit of the doubt and refrain from starving her to death.

Update Ace with yet more.