"PVS", as described by Jennet and Plum in their rather speculative Lancet paper in 1972, was never so conceptually solid as to allow its use as a bright line between life and death (this issue is critically reviewed HERE).
It does not matter whether or not Mrs. Schiavo had "PVS" or "almost PVS" or "not quite PVS", as you point out, there are frequent disagreements about diagnosis.
I'm still getting called a Nazi doctor here (and, Jim Rob, I don't like it at all) for pointing out that Tereri Schiavo had profound and irreversible brain damage.
In that light, the real question, obfuscated by all of the players in this case for their own reasons, is, "Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"
Obviously, if the proposition is stated this way (correctly, IMO), the answer will be, "No, absolutely not".
The thanatologists and killers have seized on "PVS" in an attempt to expand the scope of their "mercy" killings, so far successfully.
"In that light, the real question, obfuscated by all of the players in this case for their own reasons, is, "Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"
Obviously, if the proposition is stated this way (correctly, IMO), the answer will be, "No, absolutely not".
The thanatologists and killers have seized on "PVS" in an attempt to expand the scope of their "mercy" killings, so far successfully."
=====
I think a lot of various issues get inter-twined. Perhaps in some of your other posts you didn't make yourself fully clear and people misunderstood your intent.
While the "diagnosis" that Terri is PVS is what allowed MS to make decisions for Terri, that is why there is so much discussion about her specific condition, I agree that whether or not Terri would get better is not the real issue.
I agree with the way you phrase the question:
"Should we kill persons with severe brain damage?"
And if anyone says yes, then how about killing people with moderate or slight braindamage, or other disabilities, etc., pretty soon only those who are able bodies and think the way they are supposed to, as determined by some judge, will be allowed to live.
Terri's case is heartwrenching, because the Court ruled to kill her and because she had a loving family who begged to be allowed to take care of her, and the Court decided for death, anyway.
As I point out occasionally, even animal shelters, who put stray animals to death, spare the life of one, if there is someone willing to adopt them.
Terri had less rights than a stray animal.
The cruelty is in putting her to death, when she wasn't hurting anyone, and had a loving family to take care of her, regardless of the exact amount of the damage to her brain.