The problem with "ending the rancor" is, in my opinion, that this case, more than any other in recent times, has had the unusual effect of causing people to inadvertantly reveal their souls.
Some of us are repulsed by what we see, in what we thought was a party of like minds when it came to the sanctity of life. Some of us are repulsed on humanitarian grounds only, the callous disregard for an innocent, disabled woman. Others (and some of the same ones no doubt) by the chilling sense that this is how the Germans began, one small step at a time, what eventually became known as the Holocaust.
Life, for me, is everything, from conception right on through. A government that doesn't protect those who most need protection is not worth a whole heck of a lot. A government who condemns other countries for torture, yet "under the rule of law" (as it now stands) permits this atrocity, needs to examine its own soul, too. Or lack of one.
Did you ever stop to consider the possibility that Terri did not want to be maintained in that state? And, IF that was the case, would you not agree that the circus would be an astounding trampling of her wishes?
That's what it all comes down to - if she wanted the cessation of life-sustaining care, is there anything wrong with anything the government did in this case?
I don't know if she wanted it any more than you do. But we have procedures in place to make those determinations, and they were applied in this case with more effort, more second-guessing, more evidence than any similar case in history.