As the Schindler's take Terri's case to the doors of the Supreme Court to see if anyone will answer their knocking appeal, let's playout the hypotheticals...
If she were granted a stay of her execution (because that's what we're really talking about here, isn't it?) and she were afforded rehabilitation options that had been previously denied to her, and if that new option proved effective and resulted in her showing a discernable improvement....how little improvement would be required for all naysayers to rescind their objections to the prolonging of her life? Would she be required to feed herself? Would simply being able to speak a cogent sentence be enough to change the minds of those who otherwise would call for her demise?
In fairness, the hypothetical exists that she could improve to the point of being able to declare for herself her true stand on the matter of whether or not she should be starved to death. If she were to negate Michael's claim, a whole new series of questions would be raised. If she were to affirm it, there would be a resounding cry from euthanasia advocates, but to their dismay, there would be little to no shame nor apology from those who oppose it...at least Terri would know she was loved and cared for...and may we all have to make "apologies" for loving others so much.
Finally, we play out the hypotheticals of what if she is put to death and she really didn't want to die, or if she really could have improved, if only given the chance, apart from a controlling, self-obsessed husband. Well, those are hypotheticals you can't really do much with, now can you?
March 24, 2005 2:41 AM