I'm not sure this guy even followed the case before putting pen to paper.
"First, that the proof that she was actually in a PVS was not strong enough and was suspect because basic tests that could easily have settled doubts were being resisted."
Not strong enough for whom? Let's see your medical degree, "Doctor" McCarthy. Terri's doctors examined the x-rays and worked with her for years and were all convinced she was in a PVS. The other "basic tests" couldn't have been done because of the metal implants in her skull. They weren't "resisted," they were simply not possible.
"Second, that the evidence that Terri had actually expressed a considered preference on the momentous decision of whether to end her life was appallingly thin."
Both sides presented evidence to the judge and the judge made his decision, which was his job. Several witnesses heard adult Terri say she would not want to live as a vegetable. One witness heard a very young child Terri saying that Karen Ann Quinlan should be allowed to live. The judge gave credence to the adult's opinions, and that's as it should be. What's "appallingly thin" is the author's justification for his opinions.
"Most of us did not question that a PVS patient who had credibly expressed a choice to die could lawfully be starved and dehydrated to death."
Then please explain, Mr. McCarthy, what is your article really about, if you don't question her decision?
"Therefore, if it was to be done to an innocent person like Terri, the proof on the two predicates better be convincing. As it wasn’t convincing..."
Let's be clear on this, shall we? The "proof" doesn't have to be convincing to Mr. McCarthy, or to me, or to any member of the sensationalism-seeking general public. The "proof" as evidence only has to convince the judge. And since all of the evidence presented in the trial is not available to the general public, the general public has no right to demand further proof or to condemn the evidence as faulty or insufficient. In other words, Mr. McCarthy, butt out of the matter.
"She may or may not have been in a PVS — to this day we don’t know."
I could have sworn I heard the autopsy doctor say she had been in a PVS. I do recall him saying that she was most certainly blind. And that throws all of the Schindlers' BS observations out the window, saying that she was happy to "see" them and that she followed that Mylar balloon. They probably watched her head movements and determined when she would turn her head from one side to another, and then moved the balloon in that direction and said that the video was proof that she could see. I did see another video of her where Mr. Schindler had a set of rapidly-flashing LEDs that would attract the attention of anyone, from infant to elderly, and Terri's head kept turning from side to side, not even noticing them. That certainly confirms the autopsy determination of blindness and also confirms that the Schindlers were lying.
"We are stuck with a record that should trouble serious people: no living will, and some self-interested witnesses (mainly husband Michael, by then pulled by the ties of a new family) who suddenly remembered years after the fact that Terri supposedly made some passing remarks about not wanting to be maintained in extremis."
Michael Schiavo worked his butt off for several years to keep Terri clean and to get all kinds of special therapy and tests for her. The medical staff there said that he was a doctor's worst nightmare because he kept after them to give her special treatment. He flew her to California to have those skull implants put in to help her get back to normal again. But after her doctors informed him that she was in a PVS, he decided to let her go. And I can identify with Michael's case. If something happened to my wife, I would do everything I could to get her back to normal. But if confronted with several years of no progress, and informed by her doctors that she was in a PVS and would never get better, I would certainly honor her wishes not to be kept alive as a vegetable. Luckily, we both have living wills, so I would at that time bring out the document and be equally as dedicated to make sure her end of life wishes were honored. Michael did the right thing, regardless of his family relationships at the time.
"I’m sorry that some who championed the outcome in the Schiavo case won’t just come out and say what they really think. Namely, that some lives are simply not worth living or defending. And the legal protections are just trifles."
There's nothing like twisting the truth to make a point. This case was not about the "right to die." It was actually about the law in Florida and the "right of privacy," the privacy of making one's own end of life decisions. In this case the decision was verbal rather than written, so a court proceeding was required. But in the end, it was not the court or Michael Schiavo who decided that life was not worth living. It was Terri herself who made that decision, and her relatives related her words to the court when she was no longer capable of speech.
Let those who would second-guess Terri's doctors trot out their medical certificates for all to see. And let those who would second-guess Terri's end of life decisions trot out their detailed conversations with her for all to hear. And finally, let those who want to make money off of Terri's death by writing articles for the National Review Online retreat back under their slimy rocks where they really belong.
There! There's the outrage I was looking for. Thank you!
Excerpts from Terri Schiavo Autopsy Report
Dr. Stephen Nelson, Neuropathologist, in a report contained within the autopsy report: "The persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state are clinical diagnoses, not pathologic ones. ..."Neurophysiologic examination alone of the decedent's brain - or any brain for that matter - cannot prove or disprove a diagnosis of persistent vegetative state or minimally conscious state".