[absalom01]

First, thanks for posting all of these links in one place. It helps a great deal in terms of understanding where folks are coming from.

And let's stipulate that the diagnosis of PVS is correct, just to avoid that argument, and further stipulate that Michael Shiavo is acting in what he believes is his wife's interest. And let's even stipulate that her cognitive function will never improve. Granting all that, does it logically follow that it is ethical to kill such a person?

It seems that the argument that demands Terri's death by starvation hinges on a "quality of life" assessment. IE, somehow, while we weren't looking, the law has come to say that it's OK to kill someone if their quality of life falls below some standard -- in this case, a diagnosis of PVS. That seems to strike some thoughtful people as more than a little bit troublesome. In the real world, the "slippery slope" is not always a fallacy.

The undisputed facts are that Terri has no terminal illness, is not in pain, and did not leave a written living will. The remaining layers of conspiracy theory, speculation, and legal wrangling really aren't essential to the core assessment of whether she should be allowed to live, or be killed.

I don't gather from the uproar that FReepers are seriously alleging that the order to kill her is unlawful, but that it is evidence that the law has become seriously unmoored from morality.

[Cboldt]

I don't gather from the uproar that FReepers are seriously alleging that the order to kill her is unlawful, but that it is evidence that the law has become seriously unmoored from morality.

Actually, both allegations are made seriously. First, that the order is unlawful, either because Terri is not PVS, or because Terri's wishes would not be starved to death; and second, that casuing the death of an otherwise helathy human body is unethical.

I'm not sure what Peach's position is, but it seems to be that this must be ethical because it happens hundreds of times a day without uproar; and the decision must be correct because the court documents show it to be so.