1. If Dr. Throgmartin's analysis of the samples and other physical evidence is correct, Mrs. Shiavo had been dead for fifteen years.
2. Allowing an empty shell to cease functioning is not murder.
Or, at least, that is the way I see things.
As I am certain you disagree, and that you shall not be persuaded by anything short of a direct revelation from the Almighty, I now bid you a pleasant evening and retire from this thread.
Finest Prout,
1) If Dr. Thogmartin's analysis of the samples and other physical evidence is correct, Mrs. Shiavo had been: badly
brain damaged for an unknown amount of time.
1a) There is limited science to demonstrate when in the course
of that 15 years that damage occurred.
1b) As per another post: there is no science included in the
analysis to determine whether being starved/dehyrdated
(once fatally) caused the observed damage.
1c) The autopsy clearly sets forth (ref: World Net Daily)
that the cognitive portions of the brain were intact
whereas vision, motor portions, were deadest.
1d) Testimony from 25+ nuerologists and a Nobel prize
winning cognitive therapist oppose the conclusion
you reach as well, though your conclusion may be
objective and reasonable based on your view of the
autopsy.
2) Hence: at very least you and I do not know she was
an empty shell.
There is suggestive evidence she was. There is far more
persuasive suggestive evidence that she was not.
But in the presence of the suggestive, we must
definitively err on the side of life - can you imagine
your own self in a situation? A mind alive and
a body struggling?
And it is therefore a startling bit of terror for
a judge or an autopsy to declare the moral worth of
her person murderable. She "might have been"
non-cognizant therefore wipe her out? In all objectivity
"might have been" is as much as you or I might say
from Dr. Thogmartin's testimony.