Replies

On the contrary, it lies at the heart of the case. If Ms. Schiavo does not meet the criteria for PVS, then her health care surrogate (her husband in this case) may not "exercis[e] the incompetent patient's right to forego treatment" according to FS765.305.

Well, if that isn't process to the max! If she meets the criteria of FS765.305, kill her!

My point was, there's no such thing as PVS. "PVS" is a term that was invented to designate a subset of severely brain-injured patients to allow them to be killed. There is no bright line between "PVS" and "almost PVS" which can either be reproduceably identified or, certainly, which can justify killing vs. non-killing.

The whole distinction between "PVS" and "almost PVS" is phony, non-biological, and impossible to administer when observers disagree.

If you think brain-damaged people should be killed, fine. If you don't, also fine.

But don't justify the killing because some phony law resting on some phony disease allows it.

Slow down a second. I think it's ridiculous as well. I was merely responding to your assertion that PVS was "irrelevant" to the case.

Regardless of whether you think PVS is or is not a valid diagnosis, that is the standard Florida law uses in cases like Terri's for better or worse. Thus, it is far from being irrelevant.

If you don't like it, now is the time to start lobbying elected officials to change it.