[Abby4116]

I thought he disagreed a lot with what they did to Terri. Did we read the same article?

That's what I was thinking. I got the message, that, even though some of his facts are wrong, he is on the side of life - and that bioethicists are defining the quality of life - at the expense of the medical practitioners who are being forced to oppose that which they are taught.

[Knitting A Conundrum]

That's what I thought too. He thinks that brain damaged people are not "vegetables," unworthy of life, but real people who deserve some dignity in how they are cared for. I think he really really dislikes the culture of death that thinks that brain damaged equals brain dead, so why don't we kill them.

[SJackson]

I thought he disagreed a lot with what they did to Terri. Did we read the same article?...That's what I was thinking. I got the message, that, even though some of his facts are wrong, he is on the side of life - and that bioethicists are defining the quality of life - at the expense of the medical practitioners who are being forced to oppose that which they are taught.

You're right, his conclusions are clear. What I think bothers people is is recitation of her condition, which was clearly dismal. Emotionally it plays into that "I wouldn't want to live that way" feeling which I think is widely held, and is misinterprited as argueing that her life was valueless.