What I didn't realize as a physician was that what I had perceived as an interesting academic distinction (PVS vs SMC), one important to patient and family of course, could become the pillar of a legal argument for or against court ordered euthenasia. Once a fuzzy diagnostic term is placed into statute, and it's applicability to a case is enshrined by a single judge's 'finding of fact' it becomes transformed to the immutable. Neither burgeoning knowledge, common sense, humane arguments, nor crowbars can change it through the appeal process. It, the state and functionality of brain tissue inside the head of one poor patient, becomes a matter of lawyering.
I engaged in some argument here knowing a good bit about this field (neuroscience), struck by the inanity of medical statements in the lay press and by forum members, by the lack of solid information, the legal blocks to obtaining information, and the obvious bias in interpretations (Hemlockers vs Vitalists).
I learned a lot about my own naivete.
Great post. This case has caused many of us to learn something about ourselves, and our naivete, and to confront our ethical bases.