The problem is, you don't know that "no one's home". Doctors have slapped the (idiotic) label "Permanent Vegetative State" on her, and this makes people think of a "vegetable", and that makes people assume that "no one's home".
That doesn't mean that no one's home.
Michael Schiavo should have allowed independent tests done to determine whether she's in such a state.
Even if she is in "such a state", i.e. the state of brain damage that has been defined, by people, and given the label "Permanent Vegetative State", that would not make it all right to kill her.
Killing people because they fit the definition of some human-invented label is a very dangerous slippery slope.
Not allowing such tests makes me question his motives more than anything else in this case.
But once you buy into the logic that (1) Michael's hearsay testimony of what Terri "would have wanted" should hold sway, and (2) if she fits the definition of "PVS" she "would have" wanted to be killed, then you have no right to complain. After all, she was diagnosed PVS (once). From that point on, Michael's simply been looking out for her "wishes"; having future tests (if they don't show the right thing) might harm her "wishes" to be killed.
The real problem is that we've allowed ourselves to be mesmerized by a bogus, prejudicial term because it "sounds scientific". "Permanent Vegetative State". Oooh, so scientific. It even has an acronym, PVS. This is all very Scientific. A person = a Vegetable, say Scientists.
And never mind that laughter coming from that Vegetable...
I said I'm not going to get into an argument over whether she's PVS. Just that you shouldn't let anecdotal accounts of things that could be reflex make you think she's actually aware of anything. A person in PVS will exhibit various traits that will appear to be conscious, but they're not. They may make random gutteral sounds that can be interpreted into a myriad of different meanings, but it's just sound with no consciousness directing it. There is truly no one home, just a functioning body.
But we'll never know the truth about Terri if MS gets his way. That's just how he wants it.
And don't forget this alleged 'vegetable' said "I WAAAAAAAN..." when she was told Friday that they were stopping her feeding - and all she had to do to stop it was say she wanted to live. She said it so loud that a policeman out in the hall came in to see what the fuss was about.
Terri is still there, and what they are doing is nothing short of state sanctioned murder. If Michael and Judge Greer want her dead so bad, they should be the ones to physically and quickly execute her, IMO.
And never mind that laughter coming from that Vegetable...
Actually, the vegetable has more rights, as Hugh Hewitt notes in his blog article 'Endangered Vegetables Get More Protections Than Terri Schiavo'
In the opinion denying Terri Schiavo's parents a preliminary injunction that would have led to the resumption of hydration and nutrition, Judge Wittemore lays out his understanding of the law governing whether such a preliminary injunction ought to issue:
"A district court may grant a preliminary injunction only if the moving party shows that:
(1) it has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits;
(2) irreparable injury will be suffered unless the injunction issues;
(3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and
(4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest." (emphasis added.)
I criticize the decision in the post below because Congress and the president clearly intended a different standard to govern the granting of injunctive relief in this circumstance. I should also have noted that the courts have applied different standards for the granting of preliminary injunctions in different situations --when Congress so intends it.
On such category of special cases is the case where harm is alleged to be imminent to an endangered plant or animal, like the Riverside Fairy Shrimp, the Delhi Sands Flower-loving fly, the Stephens Kangaroo rat, or, yes, Munz's Onion --a genuine vegetable as opposed to the horrific term that has been thrown around in this case.
What's the standard when a District Court considers a situation where harm, is alleged to be imminent to any of these species listed by the federal government as "threatened" or "endangered?" I haven't had time to review the 11th Circuit's case law, but in the Ninth Circuit, the test tilts sharply in favor of protecting the species until all the evidence has been heard and weighed:
"In cases involving the ESA, Congress removed from the courts their traditional equitable discretion in injunction proceedings of balancing the parties' competing interests.," the court ruled in the 1996 case of Marbled Murrelet v. Babbitt. 83 F.3d 1068, 1073. The balancing in such cases "always tips sharply in favor of endangered or threatened species." The snail darter case from long ago set in motion the extraordinary protections accorded endangered or threatened species on the finding that this weighted balancing in favor of the species is clearly what the Congress intended.
Hopefully the 11th Circuit will carefully consider the appropriate test for preliminary relief pending trial, and quickly reverse the District Court. If that is the outcome, the Circuit Court will also have to consider carefully how it goes about structuring the remand. More on that later.